Understanding Organization Through Culture and Structure: Relational and Other Lessons From the African American Organization (Volume in Lea's Communication Series)

UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH CULTURE AND STRUCTURE Relational and Other Lessons From the African-American Organization

LEA's COMMUNICATION SERIES Jennings Bryant/Dolf Zillmann, General Editors This title is included in the Organizational Communication Subseries (Linda Putnam, series advisor): Geist/Hardesty • Negotiating the Crisis: DRGs and the Transformation of Hospitals Haslett • Communicating and Organizing: An Integrated Frame Taylor/Van Every • The Emergent Organization: Communication as Its Site and Surface Nicotera/Clinkscales/with Walker • Understanding Organizations Through Culture and Structure: Relational and Other Lessons From the African-American Organization

For a complete list of titles in LEA's Communication Series, please contact Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH CULTURE AND STRUCTURE Relational and Other Lessons From the African-American Organization

Anne Maydan Nicotera Marcia J. Clinkscales Howard University with

Felicia R. Walker Howard University

2003

LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS Mahwah, New Jersey London

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Copyright © 2003 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of the book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any other means, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers 10 Industrial Avenue Mahwah, New Jersey 07430

Cover design by Kathryn Houghtaling Lacey

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Nicotera, Anne Maydan, 1963Understanding organizations through culture and structure : relational and other lessons from the African-American organization / Anne Maydan Nicotera, Marcia J. Clinkscales with Felicia R. Walker. p. cm. - (LEA's communication series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8058-3728-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Communicaation in organizations—United States—Case studies. 2. African Americans—Communication. 3. African American business enterprises. 4. Diversity in the workplace—United States—Case studies. 5. Organizational behavior—United States—Case studies. I. Clinkscales, Marcia J. II. Walker, Felicia R. III. Title. IV. Series. HD30.3 .N53 2003 302.3'5'08996073—dc21

2002029474

Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed on acid-free paper, and their bindings are chosen for strength and durability. Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ISBN 1-4106-0748-8 Master e-book ISBN

List of Tables

Table 1.1

Examples of the Appropriation of Rules and Resources From European-American Organizational Structure Into Social Practice

12

Table 2.1

The Collapse of Themes Into Constructs

35

Table 3.1

Nichols1 (1976, 1987) Philosophical Aspects of Cultural Difference

69

Table 3.2

Examples of the Appropriation of Rules and Resources From African-American Human System Into Social Practice

70

Table 3.3

Warfield-Coppock's (1995) Afrocentric Conceptual Framework for Organizations (omits the enculturated organization)

100

Table 4.1

Warfield-Coppock's (1995) Afrocentric Conceptual Framework for Organizations (includes the enculturated organization)

155

Table 5.1

Orbe's (1998b) Model of Co-Cultural Communication Orientations

188

Table 7.1

Lawler's (1996) Six New Logic Principles Contrasted with Six Old Logic Principles

248

Table 7.2

Summary of Convergences between Triangular and Circular Rules/Resources: A Baseline for the Convergent Organization

272

List of Figures

Figure 1.1

The baseline model

11

Figure 2.1

The emergent model

49

Figure 3.1

The interpenetration of contradictory structures

68

Figure 3.2

Examples of Afrocentric organizational charts as working collectives. From Warfield-Coppock (1994)

101

Figure 5.1

The downward spiral of communication processes

161

Figure 5.2

Human communication in the predominantly AfricanAmerican organization with traditional U.S. corporate form/design

175

Figure 6.1

The interpenetration of complementary structures

204

Figure 6.2

An upward spiral of communication processes in a circular organization

205

Figure 6.3

Human communication in the predominantly AfricanAmerican organization with circular form/design

206

Figure 6.4

An upward spiral of communication processes in

208

a triangular organization Figure 6.5

Human communication in the triangular organization

208

Figure 6.6

Participatory representation as a circular communication pattern imposed on a triangular organizational form The organizational system resulting from a participatory organizational design imposed on a traditional organizational form and its attendant organizational/ corporate culture

221

Figure 6.7

222

vii

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 6.8

The downward spiral of communication resulting from a participatory structure imposed on a traditional organizational form and its attendant organizational/corporate culture

229

Figure 6.9

Human communication in the organizational system resulting from a participation program imposed on a traditional organizational form and its attendant organizational/corporate culture

239

Figure 7.1

Graphic depiction of the change in organizational form advocated by theorists of organizational restructuring

277

Figure 7.2

Graphic depiction of the change in organizational culture advocated by theorists of organizational restructuring

278

Figure 7.3

The interpenetration of multiple structures creating the convergent organization

278

Figure 7.4

Graphic depiction of the change in organizational culture that can be made in African-American organizational culture

279

Figure 7.5

The upward interaction spiral of the convergent organization

280

Figure 7.6

Human communication in convergent organizational life

281

Dedicated to our parents, Who walk before us in wisdom

Contents

List of tables List of Figures Preface 1.

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATION

v vii xiii 1

Organization and Culture 1 Theorizing Organization 3 A Baseline Model of Interpenetrating Structures 8 Our Take on Diversity 18 Summary 26 2.

COMMUNICATION AND TWO PREDOMINANTLY AFRICANAMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

28

The Organizing Scheme for Reporting Our Data, Findings, and Theory 28 Organization I: The Human Service Organization 29 Organization 2: The Elementary School 29 Method, Interpretation, and Emergent Theory 32 Conclusion 66 3.

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

67

Comparison to the Baseline Model 67 Afrocentric Theory 95 Traditional African Organizational Forms 109 Conclusion 115 4.

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES: THE DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION

116

The Contradictions 116 The Enculturated Organization 153 Conclusion 159 xi

xii

5.

CONTENTS

THE DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION'S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

160

Difficulties in Communication Processes 160 The System as a Whole 174 Briefly Revisiting History: Some Underpinnings of the System as Depicted 178 Contemporary African-American Organizational Experiences 180 African-American Communication in Predominantly White Corporations 181 Conclusion 200 6.

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

202

Predominantly African-American Organizations 202 Organizations With European-Based Cultural Membership 207 Why Divergence Has a More Negative Impact on African-American Organizations 226 Field Observations and Prescriptions That Validate Our Downward Spiral 227 Conclusion 240 7.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

241

The Task Before Us 241 Implications for Organizational Diversity 243 Implications for African-American Organizations 246 Turning Divergence Into Convergence 247 The Foundation for a Humanistic Model of Organizational Communication: A Baseline for Theorizing the Convergent Organization 271 Conclusion 280 EPILOGUE: SOME LESSONS LEARNED APPENDIX: Gender of Interviewees by Interview Number REFERENCES AUTHOR INDEX SUBJECT INDEX

283 285 287 299 303

Preface

A number of years of observing, living, and working with predominantly AfricanAmerican organizational systems (particularly in the case of the second author), as well as an understanding of the organizational literature on African Americans and the more general literature of African-American communication led to the recognition of a consistent patterning of communication for those organizational systems. That recognition of a consistent patterning naturally led us as communication scholars and consultants to theorize about the phenomenon we had so frequently observed. Our theoretic approach, laid out in chapter 1, has allowed us to problematize the cultural bases of organizational forms, and the insights laid bare as a result have been exhilarating. We hope that the reader will feel some of the same intellectual excitement.

The Genesis of This Research The first and second authors, teaching organizational communication in the same department, one day struck up a conversation regarding our thinking about Black organizations. We found, much to our excitement, that we had the same basic theory brewing in our minds independently. A set of professional projects led by the second author had generated a data set that strikingly exemplified the communication patterns we had recognized as often experienced in predominantly African-American organizational systems. It was then that we decided we must write this book. Permission was sought to use these data to illustrate the phenomenon in published research, and the project grew from there to include a second organization. The first five chapters consist of research that generates several emergent models with significant implications for organizational systems. The last two chapters apply our findings in a broader analysis of contemporary practices in organizational restructuring. We then develop a set of humanistically based models that illustrate the ways in which our particular data, analyzed through our particular approach, lay bare the hidden cultural processes that suffuse organizational life and manifest communicatively.

Our Standpoints As we argue that human beings are communicatively embedded in their cultures, it becomes paramount to note here that we bring to the table a variety of cultural

xiii

xiv

PREFACE

experiences that enhance our understanding of our data. The first author is of European descent, was raised in a middle-class majority White community (where she went through a predominantly White school system), attended historically White undergraduate and graduate schools, and has spent the majority of her professional career teaching at a Historically Black (Carnegie classified research extensive) University. She has also been involved in a great deal of team-building and communication training/consulting in the public sector. The second author is of African descent, was raised in a middle-class AfricanAmerican community (attending a predominantly While elementary school and a predominantly Black high school), attended historically White undergraduate and graduate schools. Her professional career embraces teaching at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and over 20 years of organizational consulting experience in the corporate and non-profit sectors. She has particular interest in designing interventions that validate the cultural communication processes of African-American organizations. Our third contributor is of African descent, was raised in a middle-class environment (where she went through a predominantly White school system that experienced increasing African-American enrollment as she progressed), attended a Historically Black University as an undergraduate, holds both a law degree (from a Historically White University), and a communication doctorate (from a Historically Black University), and teaches at a Historically Black (Carnegie classified research extensive) University—spending a great deal of her energy leading a team of African-American students through the predominantly White college forensics circuit. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, we thank the organizational members who participated in this research. We thank them for their time, insights, candor, and commitment that make this book possible. We would like to thank our research assistants (in alphabetical order): Jared Critchfield, Donna-Marie Darlington-Dawes, Nikita Harris, Lenny Smith, and Trina Wright. Thanks also go to Linda Putnam who provided an insightful and exceptionally helpful critique of our initial proposal and to Bob McPhee for his interest, support, and encouragement. There are, of course, many people who sacrifice in the writing of a book. Our families, friends, and colleagues often suffered (or so we would like to think) from our absence as we toiled away. Anne would like to thank her family: Greg Maydan, Danny Maydan (age 9), and Teddy Maydan (age 6) for unparalleled support and for tolerating this project's constant monopolization of the family computer. (Yes, Teddy, Mom is done with her book now.) I would also like to thank Sandra Wills Hannon—for tolerating the constant excuses for missing our regular lunches; Marcia—for a partnership

PREFACE

xv

that goes beyond co-authoring; Felicia—for never complaining about the legwork, and all my colleagues in Howard University's School of Communication who were supportive and accommodating. Marcia would like to thank her daughter Malika for her support and words of encouragement through the developmental phases of the project. Thanks to three friends, Cheryl E. Crump, Dorothy Hayden-Watkins, and Gillie Y. Haynes for their commitment and support to my scholarship. Lastly, my sincere thanks to two very important colleagues, Joyce Essien and Lawrence Sanders who contributed greatly to this work through many discussions and dialogues. Thanks to Anne for her vision and dedication. Felicia would like to thank Anne and Marcia for providing an excellent example of diligent scholarly work. Finally, a great bow of gratitude goes to Linda Bathgate at Lawrence Erlbaum Associates for her belief in this project and in us, her unfailing positive outlook, and her abilities to soothe, cheer, and encourage at a moment's notice. This research was supported in part by grants from Howard University's Faculty Research Program in the Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education.

In Closing It has been five years since the initial casual conversation between Anne and Marcia that culminated in this book. And so it is that what has been ours for those five years now also becomes yours. We hope to stimulate and inspire. We aim to raise to greater awareness the operation of culture in organizing. We have learned a great deal about organizing and culture through these data; it is our fervent wish that the reader will do the same. A. M. N. M. J. C. F. R. W.

C H A P T E R

1 Culture and Organizations

ORGANIZATION AND CULTURE Two basic and complementary assumptions undergird this work. The first is that organizations are constituted by communication. The second is that culture, which is accomplished communicatively, suffuses organizations. Thanks to the ground-breaking work of Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-Trujillo (1982, 1983), the field of communication widely recognizes the pervasiveness of culture in organizational life. Communication scholars are quick to point out that organizations are cultures, and thanks to the early influence of Karl Weick (1969, 1979, 1995), we have long been sensitive to their processual nature. Organizations, as entities, are also embedded in cultures, and “organizing” is a communication process. An “organization” in the static sense exists only as an abstraction and can be defined in a variety of ways, depending on one’s theoretic stance and the practical purpose at hand. Our understanding of organization as communication is grounded in a body of work that theorizes the process of the constitution of organization communicatively (most notably, Browning, 1992; Taylor, Cooren, Giroux, & Robichaud, 1996; Taylor & Van Every, 2000). Before engaging in this literature, however, we must provide a context for the discussion. First, we must discuss culture; our assumptions about culture are central to our understanding of organization. The co-operation of organization and culture is complex and rich. Through interaction processes, organizational members create and re-create unique organizational cultures; while, at the same time, organizational enti1

2

CHAPTER 1

ties are embedded and saturated in a cultural milieu. Just as individual human organizational members are cultural members of their organizations, organizations are cultural members of the societies in which they are embedded. In a multicultural society, like the United States, organizational members bring a multitude of cultures with them in their constitution of organization, and the organizational entity is embedded in a multicultural environment. U.S. organizations are rich with a potential for the study of culture and communication that has not been realized by communication scholars. Culture has been commonly defined by scholars in a variety of social disciplines by focusing on norms, mores, values, beliefs, customs, rituals, ceremonies, morals, attitudes, practices, and other such concepts. We contend that culture underlies these things and that values, norms, beliefs, practices, and other such constructs are the manifestations of culture, but they are not culture itself. Chen and Starosta (1998) define culture as “a negotiated set of shared symbolic systems that guide individuals’ behaviors and incline them to function as a group” (p. 26). This definition is an excellent start because it does not essentialize culture, ethnicity, or nationality, but rather identifies a common cognitive set from which persons draw at the individual and group levels. Culture, at its deepest level, embodies the very way that an individual apprehends the world (through his or her learned symbolic system). Culture is not just the way a person perceives something, but the way a person perceives. We are programmed by our culture to do what we do and to be what we are. In other words, culture is the software of the human mind that provides an operating environment for human behaviors. Although individual behaviors may be varied, all members within the same operating environment share important characteristics of the culture. (Chen & Starosta, 1998, p. 25)

People socialized in different cultures perceive things differently because they perceive differently—following Chen and Starosta’s analogy, they are “programmed” on a different operating system. Because they perceive differently, they organize differently. Culture is reflected not simply in organizational behavior, but in organizational forms because culture drives the ways in which individuals interact to coordinate their actions. Culture drives individual cognition, which is intimately interrelated with social cognition. For example, the “quality circle” is a form of organization that blends quite naturally with Japanese culture. Culture drives the ways in which individuals apprehend the realities of their interactive functioning and thus drives the organizational structures they create and/or adopt. Culture drives the ways in which people arrange themselves structurally to accomplish the coordination necessary for organizing.

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

3

THEORIZING ORGANIZATION The central argument for this book is that our theorizing, design, and practice in American organizational and institutional life has been culturally embedded in a Eurocentric understanding of social reality. The argument is not entirely new; feminist theorists have done a thorough job of deconstructing patriarchal features of organizing, such as objectivity, reductionism, and mind–body separation (even though much feminist theory maintains a Eurocentric bias). Although race/ethnicity and its associated organizational communication issues are becoming a concern to the field of communication, most treatments of the area focus on “diversity issues” in predominantly White organizations (Allen, 1995). Several difficulties that we seek to overcome are inherent in such an approach. Discussions of culture and organization that reference ethnic or racial culture tend to devolve into discussions about diversity defined as group differences and based on demographic characteristics. However, if we take a deeper approach to culture, any organization with multiple national, ethnic, racial, or societal cultures influencing its design and operation must be defined as culturally diverse, even though its human membership may have relatively high demographic, or even cultural, homogeneity. To understand cultural diversity beyond the demographic level, we must create a deeper definition of diversity that focuses not on demographic categories, but on culture at its deepest level—the very structures and systems that drive human interaction. This requires a structurational framework (Giddens, 1979, 1984; Poole & McPhee, 1983; Poole, McPhee, & Seibold, 1982; Poole, Seibold, & McPhee, 1985, 1986; Seibold & Meyers, 1986). This framework is reviewed later in this chapter. This research focuses on organizations whose membership is predominantly African-American. The field’s focus on organizations with predominantly European-descended memberships both stems from and entrenches an implicit and erroneous assumption that basic organizational processes are devoid of fundamental cultural underpinnings. Theories of organizational design are fundamentally European-based; their foundations are goals, values, and practices of European culture, such as materialism, individualism, competition, and vertical hierarchy. (These and other features of Eurocentric organizing are discussed later.) As such, the contemporary American organization is a European cultural construction. This cultural foundation remains invisible when both the management and the majority of organizational members are European-descended. The organizations from which data were gathered for this research are organized with a European-based structure; the fact that both the management and membership are predominantly African-descended allows cultural foundations to be problematized rather than glossed over. This is precisely why they were

4

CHAPTER 1

chosen for analysis. As a collection of individuals with a common base of shared symbolic systems from which to draw, these organizational memberships are fairly culturally homogenous. However, given the understanding of culture we promote here, the European culturally based design and structure of these organizations dispose us to identify them as culturally diverse. This definition of cultural diversity rests not on demographic or surface-level categories of human members, or even on characteristics of or differences between members at all. It rests, rather, upon the identification of multiple and diverse cultural symbol systems operating simultaneously in the structure and function of these organizations. Organization as Communication It is crucial to develop here a processual conceptualization of organization for this research—organization is constituted by communication, and so, the structure and function of any organizational entity are accomplished communicatively. Cynthia Stohl’s (1997) book, Organizational Communication: Connectedness in Action, was the first major work in the field of organizational communication to rest its treatment of organizational process on the assumption that organizations exist fundamentally as a set of connections among persons. The organizing process is a process of connection (Stohl, 1997), and organizations, as entities, result from connections between people. Communication is, of course, the means by which human beings achieve that connection. Earlier, Larry Browning (1992) examined how lists and stories, both of which he carefully conceptualizes, are the major types of communication that structure organizations. Lists are conceptualized as technical communication, legitimized by their scientific root and presentation as a formula for action leading to controllable outcomes. As such, “the list represents standards, accountability, certainty, and reportability. Conversely, the story is romantic, humorous, conflicted, tragic, and most of all, dramatic” (pp. 281–282). Stories are conceptualized as “communications about personal experience told in everyday discourse” (p. 285). Stories are a narrative form of knowledge that is context-sensitive. In a basic way, lists and stories can be seen to correspond, respectively, with formal and informal aspects of organization. Browning’s (1992) treatment of lists and stories is, however, far deeper and richer. He claims that all organizational communication is composed of these two types. He goes on to present two detailed case analyses that illustrate the interaction of lists and stories. In his conclusion, he suggests that the interaction of lists and stories corresponds with the interaction of, respectively, structure and system as put forth in structuration theory (examined in detailed below as the major theoretic foundation to the present work).

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

5

The contrasting qualities of lists and stories allow for an axiological focus on the central descriptive question of how individuals organize. . . . Lists lead to structure, and stories create variety. However, these data show a more complicated, embedded relationship between these two communicative types. Stories can operate to provide order . . . but in doing so they are transformed into Lyotard’s (1984) grand narrative, which is a list. Conversely, lists can enhance freedom, and discipline can increase play as it does for the child in the snow who is reminded to put her gloves on. (pp. 298–299)

Whereas Stohl (1997) and Browning (1992) assume that organization is constituted communicatively and go on to illustrate that process, James Taylor and his associates (Cooren & Taylor, 1997; Taylor, Cooren, Giroux, & Robichaud, 1996; Taylor & Van Every, 2000) provide thought-provoking indepth analysis of the ontology of organization, directly theorizing the process. Taylor and his associates call into direct question the implicit assumption in most organizational communication research that organization can exist independently of communication. Indeed, they point out that organizational communication scholars have implicitly equated “organization” with formalization. It is this erroneous implicit assumption that has set the ground for implicit container metaphors of organization and for the treatment of communication as a variable. “We err in thinking of communication as a transparent window on organizations; the properties that we recognize as organizational are in the communicational lens, not in the object they are focused on” (Taylor et al., 1996, pp. 2–3, emphasis added). The theories of communication and organization outlined by Taylor et al. (1996) are more fully developed and expanded by Taylor and Van Every (2000). In part, the process described illustrates how the organization emerges in the communication. The process is circular and self-organizing. The basis of the theory is a dialectic of interpretation: “as people collectively produce an interpretation they leave their actions open to interpretation” (Taylor et al., 1996, p. 4). Communication is conceptualized according to its two central functions, to represent and to act. Representation is accomplished through the production and comprehension of text; action is mediated by text, but only when the text has been submitted to an interpretation. The text is not the action, but merely its token. The action unfolds interactively in the context of a conversation. Communication thus has two modalities: text and conversation. (Taylor et al., 1996, p. 6)

Interpretive activities constitute conversation; the subject matter and goal of interpretation are text. Conversation and text are multiply enfolded over each other, as conversations become the subject matter for more interpretation, and it is in this dialectic between conversation and text that organizing occurs. The essence of the theoretic move here is that organiza-

6

CHAPTER 1

tion is not an objective “thing.” “That (organization) must be born and recreated in the equivocal interpretations that are intrinsic to communication does not make it less real—just not ‘real’ in the material sense” (Taylor et al., 1996, p. 5). Thus, the theory of organization developed is essentially a discourse theory. Taylor’s theories of communication and organization are necessarily embedded in narrative theory. Communication is seen as ongoing process of sensemaking. People collectively find themselves in particular circumstances and collectively find themselves affected by events. Through conversation, they interact to make sense of their existences. “Sensemaking, however, involves translating experience into language through the production of texts, spoken or written” (Taylor & Van Every, 2000, p. 58). The sequence of communication must always be seen as it occurs in the larger context of situated action; according to Taylor and Van Every (2000), this is the essence of a narrative approach. The organization emerges from communication only after the articulation that links the cognitive to the pragmatic is accomplished. “The forms of narrative, realized as the fundamental semantics in the ordinary language of people in interaction, serve to structure experience and provide the surface of emergence of organization” (p. 68). Organization emerges in communication. Communication is constrained by conversational contextual form as it is experienced by participants in an ongoing discourse-world. “The organization being generated in that discourse-world is only recognizable when it is itself translated into a text-world” (p. 104). Communication thus furnishes both a site and a surface for the emergence of organization: a site, because whatever organization is, ontologically speaking, it is clear that it must be realized in the interactive arena of communication for it to take on a tangible existence, and a surface because, we claim, it is language that makes the agencies and objects of organization available to us for the knowing. (p. 135)

Organization, then, emerges in the space between text and conversation; texts “reflexively map the organization . . . (and) constitute what makes the organization visible and tangible. . . . Yet the production of text is inherently a social event . . . so the production of a text-world is simultaneously the production of a discourse-world, realized in conversation” (p. 325). Because the process is self-reflexive, its production in discourse (conversation) continually renders the tangible organization (text) “obsolete in the very act of its own generation” (p. 325). Therein lies the perpetual organizational dance between stability and change, represented respectively by text and conversation. Taylor and Van Every (2000) define an organization both as a society and as a form of life. “It (organization) is a structuring of the social and cultural world to produce an environment whose forms both express social life and

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

7

create the context for it to thrive” (p. 324). They take what they term a “flatland view,” treating micro and macro distinctions as artificial and arbitrary because all organizational processes are interactive phenomena. The mapping (text) is social. Organization (society) is constituted by the field of boundaried discourse that is the conversation. The text (mapping) exteriorizes cognition so that organization exists in socially distributed cognition (following Weick & Roberts’, 1993, notion of collective mind). Finally, individual cognition is the interiorization of conversation. In short, where Weick, Giddens, and others explicate the social construction of reality, Taylor and Van Every (2000) explicate the construction of social reality. Mapping is the social construction; the map (text) is social reality; and these are mutually constituted through the conversation. They continue to build the theory to a rich consideration of organization as agent that thereby illustrates the tenuous distinction between “micro” and “macro” levels. However, the operation of organization as agent is far beyond the scope of this present work. Our focus is upon the human interactive (organizing) experience at the nexus of the interpenetration of cultural structures. Communication, Cultural Processes, and the African-American Organization To tap into these fundamental communicational organizing processes, this research focuses on communication problems as experienced by members of predominantly African-American organizations. Cultural processes remain invisible and taken-for-granted in the absence of effortful or problematic interaction. The taken-for-granted usually remains unremarked upon because it is unremarkable to the actors. Focusing on those interactions and communication issues and events that the organizational membership finds to be problematic, puzzling, and/or difficult therefore offers the most promising entry for an examination of deep cultural processes. The processes that occur in predominantly African-American organizations with Eurocentric structures have been documented as a common set of patterns that constitute the unique phenomenon of the “enculturated organization” (Warfield-Coppock, 1995; this theory is discussed in detail in chaps. 3 and 4). We stand to learn much from these organizations about the ways in which culture, at the deep structural level, operates in organizations. To accomplish this, the analyses in chapters 2–5 are contextualized with historic and theoretic foundations that bring a precise problematization of the cultural bases of organizational structures. The traditional practice of studying “diverse others” in organizations with predominantly European-descended memberships casts those “others” as a single entity, implicitly defined by how they are different from the cultural majority—not by their own particular cultural realities and experiences (Chung, 1997; Cox, 1990, 1994).

8

CHAPTER 1

Beyond organizational design, the communication field’s failure to recognize cultural foundations of organizing has led to the indiscriminant application of European-based theories of organizational communication analysis. Our critical–interpretive analysis shall be conducted from a set of culturally sensitive theoretic frames. Using the outcomes of these analyses, our ultimate goal is to posit an alternative, more humanistic and inclusive, less essentialist model of organizing, drawing from both the Afrocentric and Eurocentric traditions.

A BASELINE MODEL OF INTERPENETRATING STRUCTURES Before explaining our theoretic foundation and presenting our baseline model, we must offer our definition of organization. Following Weick (1969, 1979, 1995), Stohl (1997), Browning (1992), Taylor et al. (1996), and Taylor and Van Every (2000), we consider organization to be a process of ongoing interaction. Our central premise is that communication is constitutive of organization. Eschewing container and machine metaphors for organization, we conceptualize communication as the essence of organization. Organizations are made of communication. Drawing also upon systems theory, we consider interaction among systemic components (people and groups of people) to be the primary essential and defining characteristic of organizing. Organizational systems are created, maintained, changed, disintegrated, and dissolved only from communication. Organizations, as identifiable entities, are comprised of communicative relationships. Organization, then, is defined as the culturally-suffused, living system of interconnected communicative relationships among a conglomerate of interdependent coalitions, composed themselves of interconnected communicative relationships and bound together by their homage to a common mission and dependence on a common resource base, with multiple and often incompatible instrumental and interactive goals and objectives. These interdependent coalitions are comprised of individuals with varying levels of autonomy who must communicatively connect to construct their relationships and roles and to coordinate their actions to achieve the tasks set out before them as means to achieve said objectives and goals. Given this definition, we now proceed with our baseline model of interpenetrating structures. The Relationships Among Structures and Systems A central premise of this research is that organizational functioning, both positive and negative, resides in the relationship between structures (organizational form or design and other cultural structures) and systems (orga-

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

9

nizational or human interactive culture in day-to-day practice). Simply put, when patterns of human interaction (conversation, in Taylor’s language) are compatible with and thus support the organizational and cultural structure(s) (texts), organizational communication functioning is smooth. On the other hand, imposing a structure without regard to other contradictory structures that might be drawn upon in human social cultural practice creates an incompatibility that may lead to the eventual disintegration of organizational processes. This premise is based on structuration theory, which outlines the natural process of social organization. Giddens’ (1979, 1984) theory of structuration, first explicated and applied in the field of communication by Poole and his associates (Poole & McPhee, 1983; Poole, McPhee, & Seibold, 1982; Poole, Seibold, & McPhee, 1985, 1986; Seibold & Meyers, 1986) in the specific area of small group processes, represents a broad view of the structuring of society. Structuration theory attempts to reconcile two basic tensions: First, the tension between individual action and social structures; second, the tension between social structures’ stability and change (Poole et al., 1985, 1986). In our analysis, the social structures discussed are organizational designs/forms (hierarchies, authority structures, accountability structures, etc.) and human social culture grounded in ethnicity, race, and societal culture of origin. The individual action is the communication behavior of organizational members. Social practices are the basic unit of analysis for structurational theory. Structuration theory analyzes social practices by distinguishing system from structure. Systems are observable patterns of behavior; structures are unobservable rules and resources through which systems are generated. Structures are dual—both medium and outcome of action. Structures are thus continually produced and reproduced in interaction and are observable through documenting patterns of interaction. Structuration is this process of continual production and reproduction that occurs through the interaction of active, reflexive individuals (Poole et al., 1986). Any given system can contain several elements of social structure because individuals appropriate structures into systems through interaction. Multiple structures interpenetrate, mediating and contradicting one another, thus affecting the ways in which they are appropriated into the system (Poole et al., 1986). It is this interpenetration of multiple structures that is of particular interest to us here. It is our contention that the imposition of organizational forms and designs is ostensibly an imposition of Giddensian structure. Human interactants living and working in these organizational/institutional structures are simultaneously embedded in their own intrinsic cultural/social structures of ethnicity, race, and societal culture of origin. The structurational view recognizes that human interactions are suspended in a larger social environment. It assumes that human capacity to control action is “bounded” by acknowledged and unacknowledged condi-

10

CHAPTER 1

tions and by intended and unintended consequences (Poole et al., 1986). A structurational view thereby recognizes the limits imposed by conditions, both acknowledged and unacknowledged. Further, the individual intends a particular set of consequences, but may bring about a different, unanticipated set of consequences. Amidst these conditions and consequences, individuals rationalize, reflexively monitor, and motivate their actions. A rich view of goal-orientation is thus possible: “Human behavior is considered a constant flow in interaction, and goals are artificially segmented features of reflexive monitoring, defined with reference to an ‘appropriate’ time frame. . . . The idea of a preset motive governing action is an oversimplification, as is the argument that intention is purely retrospective” (Poole et al., 1986, pp. 248–249). The concept of the duality of structure (medium and outcome) is a basic assumption in our exploration of the interpenetration of two cultural structures—European-based organizational form/design and African-based ethnic culture—and the human interaction (Taylor’s conversation) that appropriates rules and resources from these interpenetrating contradictory structures. To examine the interpenetration of contradictory structures, we must begin with a baseline model of the structuration process as it occurs with interpenetrating congruent structures. Structures (rules and resources) are the medium by which systems (communication patterns) are created through interaction (Giddens, 1984). In a functional system, rules and resources for communication are drawn upon from structures to interact within and produce the social practice of communication. By their very existence, these social practices produce and reproduce those structures, so that structures are the outcome of the interaction (Giddens, 1984). As outcomes, structures can be altered through social action (Giddens, 1984). When multiple interpenetrating structures are congruent, communication systems support and reinforce the structures because the outcome of these systems is reproduction of the structures. The interpenetration of a particular ethnic, racial, or societal cultural structure and a congruent organizational structure is one of fairly smooth mediation, and few significant communication problems result; problems that do surface usually can be resolved within the existing systems and structures. When problems cannot be resolved with existing structures, new structures emerge to resolve them; as individuals negotiate in social practice, they create rules and resources (that alter the structures) to be drawn upon in future as similar problems resurface. This is the process of continual change and stability described by Taylor and Van Every (2000) and the process of enactment, selection, and retention described by Weick (1979). Our baseline model in Fig. 1.1 represents this structurational process in a culturally monolithic organizational system. For this baseline model, we use the traditionally European culturally based U.S. corporate organization

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

11

with predominantly European-descended membership for purposes of direct comparison to the predominantly African-American organization with European culturally based structure analyzed in later chapters. Structurally (in a Giddensian sense), the significant difference between these two types of organizations is the ethnic/racial cultural structures drawn upon for interaction by the majority of the human membership. The baseline model also represents our holistic theoretic approach that strives to avoid the linear thinking so prevalent in Eurocentric theorizing. By continually returning to analysis of this baseline model, we bring together the processes depicted and show their constant interconnection. The baseline model is a depiction of the simple compatible relationship between multiple structures that shows a generally functional organizational system that reproduces the initiating structures. The diagram in Fig. 1.1 depicts a black triangular shape representing one of the interpenetrating structures: the traditional U.S. corporate organizational form/design, whose origin is embedded in European thought. European scholars took a leading role during the classical period in organizational theory; Frederick Taylor, Max Weber, Henri Fayol, and others credited with the advent of postindustrial management and organizational theory are exemplars of European thinking. Max Weber, for example, based his body of bureaucratic theory on his sociologic study of the relationship between Western society to the characteristics of its organizations (1947, 1958). As such, his prescriptions for organizational design and formalization are deeply grounded in European culture. U.S. corporate structure, even in its contemporary form, is a close reflection of the linear, vertically hierarchical, reductionist, and formalized nature of early organizational design attributed to scholars of this classical era. Corporate structure includes the rules and resources to be drawn upon in social practices of organizational life. This black triangle depicting the rules and resources embedded in the organizational structure interacts with the white triangle representing the second interpenetrating structure:

FIG. 1.1. The baseline model.

12

CHAPTER 1

European-American human culture. The key point to this process is that the majority of members of European-based cultures draw their rules and resources for social practice and appropriate social/organizational behavior from a European-based cultural structure that is congruent with the European cultural structure on which the organizational form and design are based. We must be careful not to essentialize culture. We do not mean to say that there exists homogeneity in individual values or action, or even that cultural members will draw on the same rules/resources or even make the same choices of practices based on them. However, we do assume that there exist (according to, among others, Giddens, 1984, Taylor & Van Every, 2000, and Weick & Roberts, 1993) common cultural structures (represented in other work by a shared pool of social symbol systems) that cultural members draw upon. Rules and Resources. The rules and resources of this European cultural structure—for both corporate design and social culture—are presented in Table 1.1. They include task orientation, the value of materialism, economic motivation, the primacy of control, the primacy of vertical hierarchy, the value TABLE 1.1 Examples of the Appropriation of Rules and Resources From EuropeanAmerican Organizational Structure Into Social Practice Rule/Resource Task Orientation Materialism Profit/Economic Motivation Primacy of Control Primacy of Vertical Hierarchy Value of Authority Dichotomous Logic Objectification (Depersonalization) Measurable Productivity Value of Youth (innovation/change) Individualism Self-reliance Competition Value of the Written Word Efficient Information Gathering/Dissemination Monosynchronic Time Orientation Objectivity Cartesian Dualism Linearity Reductionism

Social Practice Example Objectives-focused management Company car/limo; Bonuses “Value-added” criteria Signatory authority “Going through channels” At-will firing policies Categorical reasoning Change of popular euphemism (e.g., layoff to RIF) Quantitative performance evaluations College campus recruiting (“new blood”) Awards “Movers and shakers” Prizes for top sellers Contracts; Reports Regular staff meetings “Time is money” Annual report Fraternization policies; “Business before pleasure” Chain-of-command; promotion paths “The bottom line”

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

13

of authority, dichotomous logic (win/lose, either/or), objectification (depersonalization), the value of quantitatively measurable productivity, the value of youth (representing innovation and change), individualism, self-reliance, competition, the value of the written word, efficient information gathering and dissemination, monosynchronic time orientation, objectivity, Cartesian dualism, linearity, and reductionism. These are highlights of classic organizational design and management theory that can be seen as most saliently European; they were chosen for this table based on their comparative value to our data. Because it is crucial to an understanding of the baseline model, this list of rules and resources for European-American culture are presented here prior to our presentation of data from predominantly African-American organizations. In fact, the list in Table 1.1 was constructed after initial thematic analysis of data had been completed and after a similar list for African-American culture was derived from the data (presented in Table 3.4, chap. 3). In addition to classical theories of management and organizational design (Fayol, 1949; Taylor, 1911; Weber, 1947, 1958), because descriptions of Eurocentric and/or European-American culture are commonly found in comparisons to Afrocentric or African-American culture, this list can also be validated by a variety of sources on philosophical cultural values (Asante, 1987, 1988; Nichols, 1976, 1987; Schiele, 1990; Warfield-Coppock, 1995), comparisons of African-American communication to European-American communication (Daniel & Smitherman, 1976; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1987; Hecht & Ribeau, 1984; Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993; Hecht, Ribeau, & Alberts, 1989; Jenkins, 1982; Kochman, 1981; LaFrance & Mayo, 1976; Martin, Hecht, & Larkey, 1994; Orbe, 1995, 1998a, 1998b; Rose, 1982/1983; White & Parham, 1990), research on African-Americans in organizations (Alderfer, 1990; Asante & Davis, 1989; Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991; Cox & Nkomo, 1986; Foeman & Pressley, 1987; Jones, 1973, 1986; Kossek & Zonia, 1994; Kraiger & Ford, 1985; Nkomo, 1992; Nkomo & Cox, 1989; D. Thomas, 1989, 1990, 1993; Wharton, 1992), as well as our own research and observations. The foregoing list is by no means an exhaustive treatment of cultural rules and resources embedded in European-American traditional organizational structures; we have chosen a core set of central cultural features based on those found in the data and thus salient in the discussion of predominantly African-American organizations to come. Table 1.1 includes a description of the ways in which rules and resources are appropriated and invoked as social practice. Some social practices listed are common corporate/institutional norms, others are commonly uttered aphorisms or maxims that summarize core cultural values. Given that these rules and resources are mutually influential, the social practices listed fit numerous structural components. Task orientation is practiced in the setting of objectives and the ways in which management is driven by those objectives. Materialism is often in-

14

CHAPTER 1

voked and practiced socially through the offering of materialistic items to motivate individual performance; the company car/limo and performancebased bonuses are two examples. Profit/economic motivations are invoked in the question often heard at corporate staff meetings, “What value have you added to the company this week?” The primacy of control is appropriated in the practice of signatory authority; by authorizing the signatures of only certain people to approve particular actions, control is maintained. The cliche “going through channels” preserves the vertical organizational hierarchy. At-will firing policies draw on the resource of authority. The social practice of attempting to motivate employees with aphorisms such as “winners never quit” or “don’t settle for second-best” invokes the cultural ideal that “winning” means being the best; not-winning, of course, is by implication losing. As popular use of euphemisms for terminating large numbers of employees change, the essence of the social practice of the euphemism is to depersonalize the experience. As the term “layoff” became commonly used, it became more personal. A shift to a more predominant use of other (not always new) terms such as RIF (reduction in force) and “downsizing” serve to depersonalize the very personal experience of losing one’s job and financial security. The ongoing search for new ideas and “new blood” on college campuses represents a value of the particular energy of youth. The rule of individualism manifests in social practice as the conferring of individual awards. Calling someone a “mover and shaker” functions to revere them for their selfreliance. Giving prizes, such as glamorous vacations, to top sellers in a sales force reproduces a value of competition among coworkers. The written word as a primary resource is invoked in the practice of contractwriting and of writing reports. Coming together as a group for regular staff meetings to present those reports invokes the rule of gathering and disseminating information efficiently by reporting on one’s progress on projects and by making announcements to a group. The monosynchronic time orientation of European-based cultures has been documented by Edward T. Hall (1983). In monosynchronic cultures, time is treated as a commodity that can be bought, sold, wasted, and saved. Maxims such as “time is money” and admonitions for people to “manage their time” appropriate the cultural rule of monosynchronism into social practice. Objectivity can be represented in organizational practice by the presentation of annual reports to stockholders that details an accounting of the corporation’s yearly activities and financial standing. Cartesian dualism is the separation of mind and body, logic and emotion, intellect and sentiment. Corporate policies that forbid personal relationships or out-of-workplace socialization among employees draw on this value of the separation of business (intellect) from pleasure (sentiment). Formalized grade levels

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

15

and promotion pathways are organizational practices that invoke the rule of linearity. Finally, the rule of reductionism is best summed up when, in practice, “it all comes down to the bottom line.” In Fig. 1.1, the black and white triangles easily blend to produce an evenly shaded gray triangle, representing the reproduction of both the corporate and social structures. This is not to say that organizational life is always easy in an organization with culturally congruent organizational and social structures; quite the opposite, rather, it is this natural blend that allows the navigation of difficulties. The arrows on the gray triangle represent movement between system and structure—the production and reproduction of structures through interaction. The “natural blend” depicted in Fig. 1.1 describes an organizational system where members are able to straightforwardly draw on rules and resources, translate them into social practices, and navigate the inevitable difficulties in their organizational lives. An organization that is culturally homogenous such that the intrinsic social culture of its membership draws on the same cultural structure from which the organization has been designed can be expected to function and progress because the interpenetrating structures are matched, even though other contradictory structures may coexist and there are withinculture variations of the ways in which structure is appropriated into social practice. Such contradictions can be managed by cultural members as values between which one must strike a balance (e.g., balancing the wisdom of experience with the vitality of youth). Difficulties can arise due to those contradictions within the structure and variation in choices as to how to enact the structure, as well as other forces such as internal competition over resources, incompatible goals between coalitions, and societal changes that produce new structures (such as the feminist movement). The idea here is that in the traditional European-based U.S. corporation/ institution with culturally homogenous European-descended membership, congruent structures (rules and resources) and commonly understood social practices are readily at hand in both interpenetrating structures. The organizational culture is the interpenetration of congruent structures and the ways that those structures are enacted in social practices to allow productive spirals of communication and the production and reproduction of the cultural structures. As cultures, structures, and practices change, cultural development occurs naturally, but not necessarily smoothly, through the structurational process described by Giddens (1984) as well as the organizing process described by Weick (1969, 1979, 1995) and by Taylor and Van Every (2000). People make sense of their actions based on their intimate knowledge of their cultural milieu. Culture does not become visible unless there is an interpenetration of structures that contradict one another or mediate one another in such a way as to produce change in common social practice.

16

CHAPTER 1

Through interaction, individuals and groups reproduce existing structures (in Weickian language this is selection, enactment, and retention) or, in response to multiply interpenetrating contradictory or mediating structures, produce altered structures that are then drawn upon and reproduced to persist as cultural change. Structuration and Diversity. Until multiple structures mediate or contradict one another in novel ways, however, they remain invisible, and the appropriation of rules and resources into social practice remains automatic, unnoticed, and thus unremarkable. And therein lies the reason that corporate diversity is often implicitly viewed as a “minefield”—a potentially destructive force that is difficult to manage. When the U.S. organizational status quo—in this case European-American culture—is faced with a significant organizational membership of individuals from other cultural backgrounds, the invisibility of cultural underpinnings in organizational structure and practice begins to dissolve because these individuals bring with them other cultural structures with other rules and resources to be drawn upon for social practice. We have seen this process played out with the influx of women into professional-status organizational roles. Judi Marshall’s (1993) deconstruction of “American” corporate culture as patriarchal and thus “high-context” for women lays bare the process as it occurs for women as they enter male-dominated organizational settings. The development of societal structures of anti-sex-discrimination and liberal feminism aided in the process of corporate cultural/structural change by providing structure and system in the societal culture to be reproduced in the organization. According to our baseline model, the interpenetration of contradictory structures would render the invocation of rules and resources more difficult because it is no longer automatic and unnoticeable. Without an understanding of deep cultural foundations for human values, expectations, and behavior, basic organizational processes become more difficult to carry out in a culturally diverse system than in a monolithic system. The structurational and sensemaking processes rise from beneath the surface to the conscious level of interaction. In simple terms, European-American people have to think about things that they have never had to think about before. Understanding the fact that processes of this nature were ongoing prior to a conscious recognition of them is an important part of achieving successful diversity. In a diverse organization, when the cultural underpinnings of both organizational structure and social practice are examined and the rules, resources, and practices of the organization are reinterpreted, the diverse organization is superior to a culturally monolithic organization in a number of ways. Among other things, Taylor Cox (1994) argues that such a wellstructured and well-managed diverse organization can be superior in terms

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

17

of creativity, problem solving, flexible adaptation to change, cost structures, maintenance of highest-quality human resources, and marketing to diverse constituencies. (Note that the organization is what is managed here, not its diversity—more on this later.) When the cultural underpinnings of both structure and social practice are invisible to organizational leadership and to the general organizational membership, diverse workgroups often have more communication problems, longer decision times, and lower member morale than culturally homogenous workgroups (Cox, 1994). Contradictory Interpenetrating Structures. When an organization bears a form and design appropriated from one cultural structure and is peopled homogenously by members of another cultural structure, an entirely different process arises—one that has not been adequately studied. This circumstance, represented in this research by the predominantly African-American organization with traditional hierarchical European-based organizational design, provides a unique view of the ways in which culture operates organizationally. Clearly, when the cultural underpinnings of an organization’s structure (form, design) are analyzed as an integral part of the research and are shown to be incongruent with the cultural underpinnings of the organizational members’ social structure, a broader and deeper understanding of cultural diversity becomes available and necessary. In structurational terms, such an organizational form allows a unique opportunity to examine the interpenetration of contradictory multiple structures. In such an organization, social practices will often undermine one or another of the interpenetrating structures because the outcome of these systems will be a reproduction of one structure or the other, or a production of a different structure altogether that rebels against the contradiction. This interpenetration thus likely results in a unique organizational culture, which then stands paradoxically as yet another contradictory interpenetrating structure. When the majority of organizational members have immediately available a different set of rules and resources than those in which the organization’s design is embedded, the interpenetration of the ethnic/racial/social cultural structure and the organizational structure will constantly be one of both mediation and contradiction with little ground from which a new progressive structure might naturally emerge, and significant communication problems will result. It is our contention that this is the process that produces the culture of the “enculturated organization” documented by Warfield-Coppock (1995, reviewed later). This is the process depicted in our data in chapters 2–5. In our scholarship as a field we have missed much by focusing almost exclusively on predominantly European-descended memberships of Eurocentrically designed organizational forms and by defining organizational diversity at surface-level demographics. Our understanding of race is growing

18

CHAPTER 1

exponentially; however, our understanding of race and organization has been limited by theory and research that largely examines predominantly European-American organizations and by a lack of problematizing the cultural foundations of organizational forms and structures. Most work regarding race and organization is implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) assumed to be diversity research, which is then limited to persons of color navigating their way through predominantly White organizational systems. Even this research is often limited by surface-level demographic descriptions of diversity. Little of it examines cultural underpinnings of social structures. There is also a proliferation of work on corporate and organizational diversity that examines multinational organizations, conceptualizing diversity (and culture) along national borders. Although interesting and fruitful, this line of research is of little value to our current project. We shall not utilize the diversity literature in grounding our work. However, we shall briefly address diversity here and return to the topic at the end to discuss the implications of our work for providing unique insight as regards diversity. As discussed earlier, we define organizations with predominantly African-American membership as culturally diverse when the organizational structure is a European-based cultural construction and the human membership is embedded in African-American culture. Cultural diversity is thus embedded in the interpenetration of diverse structures. Although our research is not directly about diversity, we must briefly examine what diversity has meant to us as practitioners and scholars. We must explain the implications of our theoretic approach for diversity research because they are profoundly important both theoretically and politically. As scholars, nearly all that we understand about organizations has developed from studies of organizations with predominantly European-descended memberships and Eurocentrically-based structures. The following description of our take on diversity (that closes this chapter) is only indirectly related to our analysis of data on communication problems as experienced by members of predominantly African-American organizations with European culturally based design. However, as our work has important implications for diversity, prior to our analysis of data we must indulge in a short aside to explain the approach to diversity that naturally springs from our theoretic stance.

OUR TAKE ON DIVERSITY The terms diversity, multiculturalism, and the like have become god-terms in American society. As scholars and as citizens we have come to embrace the idea of achieving harmonious diversity—even as “diversity” is often implicitly conceptualized as a “challenge” to “overcome.” Diversity is implicitly treated in both scholarly literature and institutional practice as a poten-

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

19

tially damaging force that must be neutralized. We see this as the appropriation of Eurocentric rules and resources embedded in corporate design and structure, as we described before. Corporations are urged to attend to diversity issues not proactively to gain something positive, but reactively to avoid something negative—not because of the potential for greater overall gain as documented by Cox (1994), but to “stay in business (and) thrive in the modern global environment” (R. Thomas & Woodruff, 1999, p. 225). In fact, companies are warned that if they “ignore diversity concerns (they are) set on a disastrous course” (p. 225). A notable subtext in many writings on diversity is that it is difficult but is being inevitably forced upon organizations by circumstance and politics, and so its negative influence must be neutralized. This is revealed by the following examples of titles of books and articles: “Diversity Dilemmas at Work” (Bond & Pyle, 1998); “Diversity and Performance: A Shotgun Marriage?” (Carr, 1993); “Strategies for Managing Human Resource Diversity: From Resistance to Learning” (Dass & Parker, 1999); “Coming to Terms with Diversity” (Digh, 1998); “Dealing with Diversity: The Coming Challenge to American Business” (Doka, 1996); The Trouble with Multiculturalism (Wegner, 1994); and “Beyond Affirmative Actions: The Perils of Managing Diversity” (D’Souza, 1996). Regardless of the content of these writings, their titles play into the deepest fears (voiced or unvoiced) of upper management—that the nature of diversity is dangerous and unavoidable. Rather than conceiving of gains to be maximized, the focus is on dangers to be minimized.

“ ‘Managing’ Diversity” as the Appropriation of Eurocentric Rules and Resources Diversity is commonly conceptualized as something to be “managed” (e.g., Cox & Beale, 1997; Dass & Parker, 1999; Dobbs, 1996; D’Souza, 1996; Hostager, 1995; Kirby & Harter, 2001; Moghaddam, 1993; Muller & Haase, 1994; R. Thomas, 1999). The unexamined assumption behind such language is that diversity is something to be controlled carefully that, left unchecked and/or uncontrolled, will be destructive. The language in titles of writings aimed at both scholars and managers highlights the negative impact of badly approached diversity. The tone for interpretation by the reader has been set, a self-fulfilling prophecy set in motion. As an inevitable and natural human phenomenon, it is not diversity itself that is negative so much as the way in which it is approached. In fact, diversity can indeed result in quite negative organizational outcomes if it is treated, as it usually is, only at the surface level. Unfortunately, the shade of meaning between diversity itself and the way in which it is approached is conceptually blurred in the literature—particularly that literature aimed at practicing managers.

20

CHAPTER 1

To conceive of “managing diversity” is to implicitly conceive of the organization as a static container. It is not “diversity” that needs to be managed, but the organization itself—which in our terms means paying close attention to the communication processes from which “the organization” emerges. And managing a diverse organization is quite different from managing a monolithic organization; adding “diversity” to the laundry list of things to be managed does not result in a changed philosophy defining the organization—and that is what is needed to most fruitfully manage a diverse organization. Seen from the structurational perspective outlined earlier, conceiving of “diversity” as one item in the list of things to be managed can be described as an invocation of several of the rules presented in Table 1.1. Among other things, the idea that one can “manage diversity” and the overt and forceful attempt to do so can be seen as the invocation of the rules of control, vertical hierarchy, authority, reductionism (diversity reduced to surface-level markers), and objectivity (marginalizing nonstandard viewpoints). In other words, the very notion of the managerial approach to diversity is embedded in the corporate American structure, which is by definition European in origin. Kirby and Harter (2001) also warn of the consequences of this linguistic representation, pointing out that the phrase “managing diversity” simultaneously dehumanizes the workforce as it emphasizes managerial control and deletes agency “where the person exerting the control is not mentioned and thus made invisible” (p. 124). They briefly discuss the managerial domination and hegemony that both drives and is produced by the managerial metaphor. By examining the underpinnings of cultural structures that drive organizational structures, we may begin to see that what other theoretical stances might call cultural bias may be a natural result of surface-level analysis. The surface-level analysis also maintains an implicit container metaphor. However, when a formerly culturally monolithic organization becomes “diverse,” it is the organization that has changed and not merely its “contents”— because communication creates organization. As long as we conceive of “diversity” as something to be “managed,” we preclude our coming to terms with that basic fact. This shift in thinking is a crucial step; by digging deeper and changing the way in which we view the organization itself, we move to a richer, more organic understanding of the organization—defining a diverse organization as one with a diverse communicative infrastructure of interpenetrating cultural structures that can enable growth in areas previously unavailable. Diversity becomes more than an externally mandated or politically pressured shift in personnel demographics; diversity becomes a core value and thus a vital force in the evolution of a stronger, more effective organization, more closely intertwined with its surroundings—and thus more successful in the long run. Anything less results in a corporate strategy that maximizes the potential of diversity at damage control.

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

21

Managerial Bias in Research. The literature on diversity in organizations, although growing, is heavily managerially-biased. By “manageriallybiased,” we mean that researchers investigating organizational diversity typically take the standpoint of the organizational (or institutional) norm and place “diversity” on a list of things “to be managed.” This kind of thinking prevents the conceptual shift described earlier by perpetuating existing philosophies defining the organization. The particular standpoint taken in any piece of research has a profound impact on all aspects of its outcomes, from the content of its findings to the tone of its interpretation. Failing to consider the cultural underpinnings of the viewpoints of nondominant group members serves to reify the organizational norm as the primary, if not the only, legitimate reality by which the organization operates. “Othered” ways of thinking and of accomplishing tasks get driven underground and their potential to enrich organizational process becomes lost. In fact, it is quite common for organizational diversity programs to seek to integrate diverse “others” into the organization with a minimum of disruption. Cynthia Stohl (1997) documents a multitude of disruptions in organizational functioning “caused” by a diverse organizational membership. From a managerial viewpoint, culturally monolithic by its historical nature (see the earlier description of our structurational approach), any disruptive force must be eliminated to protect the bottom line. Hence, diversity initiatives often take the form of assimilationist or accommodationist models: With well-intentioned assistance, nondominant group members are expected to find ways of functioning in the organization that do not disrupt the status quo—they are expected to learn to invoke rules and resources from the organization’s structure/design (which is, of course, usually a European-based cultural structure), rather than from the structures of their own individual ethnic/racial/social cultures. The functional result of assimilationist or accommodationist models is that the cultural structure from which the organization has historically operated is reproduced and more firmly entrenched as the only appropriate frame of reference, casting all those who are not dominant group members as “outsiders-within” (Collins, 1990). In addition, such approaches to diversity make nondominant group members responsible for “fitting into” the organizational reality. The richness and success available by allowing a more emergent organizational reality/structure based in the diversity of its membership becomes a lost opportunity for growth. Mark Orbe (1998a, 1998b) offers data-rich descriptions of the experiences of nondominant group members negotiating their way through dominant-culture organizations; he is able to show that strategies of accommodation, assimilation, or separation are not merely corporate strategies for “managing” diversity designed by top executives embedded in European cultural/organizational structures, but are grave personal choices

22

CHAPTER 1

made by individuals, often with great difficulty and uncertainty, and at considerable personal and/or professional risk. It is our contention that the risk exists because diversity is treated at the surface level; deep structural intercultural and interindividual understandings are neither pursued nor achieved in many cases. There are those who would argue that corporate America is succeeding in its efforts to achieve harmonious diversity, and in some corners perhaps it is. Organizations, however culturally monolithic, have always been peopled by a diverse array of personalities, skills, and strengths. Good managers have always had to manage diversity at some level. However, explicit efforts to achieve, and celebrate, diversity have largely focused on surface-level markers such as race, ethnicity, gender, physical ability, and sexual identity. These cultural markers have not been defined in a deep structural way. Example of Surface-Level Institutional Thinking. The 2000 U.S. Census is an excellent institutional exemplar of our inability to think beyond the surface level in defining race. Unable to define a categorical response set for “race” that satisfied many “mixed-race” citizens and parents of “mixed” children, the traditional categories were left essentially the same as they had been before, with individuals allowed to check multiple boxes or otherwise respond as they best saw fit. To the critical eye, this clash between the institutional desire to count people in categories and the human desire to resist categorization is a quintessential postmodern dilemma. In a Washington Post article, D’Vera Cohn (2000a) tells about one man who wrote “Human” in answer to the question of race for himself, his wife, and his children: It was a gesture of protest about a question he considers irrelevant and intrusive. But it also said: Do not define me on your terms. Even as this decade’s census form offered for the first time the option to check more than one racial category, [his] reply was intended to tell the authorities that he did not want his family to be categorized at all. (B1)

The Census seeks to define citizens categorically and quantifiably; many citizens who are cultural members of multiple “groups” seek to define themselves as unique cultural individuals in unquantifiable ways. For many people, checking a box to define their “race” was tantamount to squeezing their identities into a space defined badly by others and no bigger than a fraction of an inch. For many people, that single question was demoralizing, dehumanizing, and marginalizing. The idea behind the change in the census form—to be followed soon by Social Security applications, school enrollment forms, birth certificates and other

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

23

forms that ask for racial identification—is to give people more choices in how they describe themselves. But to many people in mixed-race relationships, that will not do. They want to write their own scripts. (Cohn, 2000a, B1)

The result, of course, is that regardless of how they felt about it, citizens got defined externally and counted categorically and quantifiably, if not entirely accurately. The subtext of the institutional solution to the clash is that the maintenance of the categorizable quantification of citizens at the expense of accuracy in doing so is acceptable. (This brief analysis does not even take into account the resulting marginalization of a significant number of people.) Institutionally, being able to count and categorize people, for a variety of noble purposes, was most important. And accounting and categorization of citizenry is embedded in the Eurocentric institutional structures that prevail. Indeed, the Washington Post reported that “the survey numbers show that some local minority populations could show substantial growth because of the multirace option. That is because federal officials say that anyone who checks both ‘white’ and another race will be counted as a minority for purposes of civil rights enforcement” (Cohn, 2000b, C8, emphasis added), which could greatly complicate that enforcement. One former census official expects some employers, housing authorities and other institutions to challenge the numbers used for civil rights enforcement and complain that the rules were changed in midstream to make it harder to comply with equalopportunity laws. “It’s going to open up room for a lot of argument, or it could,” he said. “The bureau has been emphasizing the overall rate, but that is not where the issues arise.” (Cohn, 2000b, C8)

There exist multiple ironies folded within ironies in allowing people to check more than one box then counting them only as one category (denying their self-identification) and using that data for civil rights enforcement in such a way to open the doors to debate of that enforcement. It is not our purpose here to fully deconstruct the Census or the U.S. government, but merely to use the Census as an example of the embeddedness of U.S. institutional handling of diversity issues in particular cultural structures. Ideally, government leaders and civil servants are trying in the best way they know how to achieve goals that are beneficial to the whole citizenry. Theorizing critically, the problem is that the best way they know how is embedded within a particular set of cultural rules and resources that is invisible to them and which, because of its invisibility, they cannot escape. The only way they know to handle diversity is to begin by categorizing people into groups, a practice embedded in a Eurocentric approach to problem-analysis and -solving. It is also inherently divisive societally because, among other things, it reinforces the notion of difference based on surface-level characteristics. These surface-

24

CHAPTER 1

level characteristics then become defining characteristics that are associated with stereotypical and often inaccurate generalized descriptions. Regardless of political stance and purposes, arguments, policies, and programs are advanced based on information constructed from an unexamined, culturallyembedded understanding of social reality. The institutional practice of the Census and the traditional ways in which categories of humans are defined by U.S. government policies and programs are deeply embedded in Eurocentric cultural structures. By responding to pressure from citizens and changing response requirements on the question of racial categories, Census officials appeared to wish to accomplish their task without offending anyone’s sense of identity. What they failed to see was that their very task, by definition, is offensive to many people’s senses of identity as the institutional cultural structure interpenetrates in contradictory ways with the multiple cultural structures existing in a multicultural society. The deepest assumptions behind utilizing racial categories in the U.S. Census are grounded in an understanding of social reality that runs at odds to a deeply diverse society. [Here, we specifically invoke the term “deep diversity” as coined by Heather Harris (2000) in her doctoral dissertation to humanistically discuss diversity among individuals as rooted in culturally constructed identities grounded in cultural structures, related to but not definable by surface level characteristics (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.).] But in the end, that is exactly how the Census Bureau used their data; many people who checked multiple racial responses were routinely categorized into single minority categories—with good intent for civil rights enforcement, but reinforcing of a politics of difference based on surface-level markers. A parent (who is also a scholar) quoted in one of Cohn’s Washington Post articles sums the issue up quite well: “ ‘We shouldn’t accept this as the only way to divide up the world,’ said Richard Grinker, an anthropology professor at George Washington University and the father of two biracial children. ‘If they are man-made [categories], we can change them.’ ” (Cohn, 2000a, B1). Issues of identity and equal opportunity are both extremely important arenas. We have come quite far in our scholarship and in our society since the Civil Rights Era. However, what we have not done enough of is to delve deep beneath the surface level to construct an understanding of culture and organization from the inside out. We have not developed our understanding of the ways in which individuals think and the very ways in which they apprehend the world and construct meaning from within their culturally-constructed identities and roles and the ways in which individuals invoke multiply mediating and contradicting interpenetrating cultural structures.

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

25

Culture and the Individual Allen (1995) argues that the focus on race/ethnicity (surface-level groupings) leads to a consideration of communication behavior as a group phenomenon, and so diversity training is generally focused around sweeping generalizations. Allen points out that this conceptualization allows for the maintenance of a dominant group from which comparisons are made for nondominant groups. The surface-level, “headcount” approach thus reifies the hegemony that maintains the status quo. This argument is critically important because, viewed in this way, approaches to diversity can be seen as serving to reinforce the notion of a dominant group and thus to reproduce and perpetuate the hegemonic structures that diversity initiatives are ostensibly designed to overcome. In addition, Singelis and Brown’s (1995) work on the tenuous link between culture and individual behavior reveals that diversity initiatives guided along racial/ethnic (surface-level) lines do not allow for any examination of influences that create variations within such demographic groups. Further, Allen (1995) argues that, “combined with contextualizing our findings, reporting differences within groups should deter us from perpetuating stereotypes about how ‘all’ members of certain racial–ethnic groups behave. These measures also should preclude the propensity to provide generic prescriptions for how to interact with members of certain racial–ethnic groups” (p. 151). Indeed, culture and communication mutually influence one another (Chen & Starosta, 1998; Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993); however, culture is not synonymous with ethnicity and race, and cultural membership is not an accurate predictor of individual behavior or identity (Singelis & Brown, 1995). Too much of the literature on both diversity and intercultural communication essentializes race, ethnicity, and/or nationality. It is one thing to claim, as we do, that cultural members learn to apprehend the world through a common set of symbolic systems and then act based on those perceptions of the world; it is quite another to claim that people act the way they do (or can be expected to act in a particular way) because they are African or Korean or Bolivian or Arabian or European, ad infinitum. Essentializing Culture as Race, Ethnicity, or National Origin. Both the diversity literature and the intercultural communication literature are replete with theory and research that essentializes race, ethnicity, and/or nationality. One need not look far to find summaries of communicative patterns based on racial, ethnic, or national groupings. Although we agree that culture is best conceptualized as a group-level phenomenon and that patterns can indeed be identified, we take issue with theory, research, and

26

CHAPTER 1

practice that essentializes any group membership. The generalization of a communication characteristic or pattern across a group of people is just that—a generalization. To essentialize is to treat those group-level patterns as accurate predictions of any one individual’s behavior. To do so in practice is to strip an individual of his or her unique and valuable voice, to preclude that individual from serving the organization in any way that is nonstereotypical, and to obstruct meaningful person-to-person relationships built on getting to know an individual by setting up intercultural/interracial expectations that are, in many cases, inaccurate. We propose, rather, to describe culture (ethnic, national, racial, regional, etc.) as learned sets of rules and resources (structures) that individuals draw on when acting in a social environment. Cultural diversity, then, is operating among persons who draw upon varied sets of rules and resources (embedded in their primary socializations—ethnic, national, regional, etc.) to enact social practices in organizational settings to accomplish organizationally related goals and objectives. Using this definition, we can begin to understand the cultural bases on which people draw for their actions, but we cannot use culture as the prediction of how any one person or group will act. With this approach, we eliminate the essentialization of culture, and we minimize faulty assumptions and inaccurate expectations based on cross-cultural comparison laundry lists. We begin to understand individuals as drawing from but never completely mirroring their cultural socializations.

SUMMARY As discussed earlier, we seek to shift the field from a surface-level to a deep structural understanding of culture, race, ethnicity, and social origin. Because our approach defines as diverse the organization with predominantly African-American membership and European culturally based design/form, we felt it necessary to examine briefly the ways in which corporate/organizational diversity has been commonly treated so as to compare the prevailing view(s) with our own that arises from a set of assumptions grounded in an emergent perspective on organization and a structurational perspective on culture. This research, however, is not focused on diversity, although it has profound implications for thinking about diversity. In chapters 2–5 we present our data and the theory that emerges from it in an effort to understand communication problems in predominantly African-American organizations with European culturally based organizational forms. These descriptions are interwoven with a variety of theoretic, historical, empirical, and conceptual explanations from a varied array of literature as a means to our larger goal of using these data to better understand cultural processes in organizations. Following these chapters, we examine the processes wherein traditional

CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS

27

vertically hierarchical organizations attempt to change that organizational design; we examine the implications of our approach for understanding diversity; and we discuss the implications of our theory for building a convergent humanistic approach to understanding organizations. Chapter 1 has laid out our approach to culture, explained our theoretic approach to organizational functioning and our theoretic foundation for our analysis, presented our baseline model for the interpenetration of cultural structures, and explained our approach to diversity in light of these theoretic approaches. Our definition of culture as residing in deep structural layers that drive the very ways in which human beings are socialized to apprehend the world offers a rich ground for defining as culturally diverse the organizations we study herein. Predominantly African-American organizations have not been widely studied in general and have not been examined at all in the field of communication. Our attempts to examine them here, however, represent something far more than inclusivity. We maintain that by revealing the cultural underpinnings of organizational structure and day-to-day organizational practices, these organizations can teach us much about the ways in which culture operates in organizational life. By drawing assumptions from Taylor and his associates’ (Taylor et al., 1996; Taylor & Van Every, 2000) theory of emergent organization and Giddens’ sociological theory of the structuring of society and culture (Giddens, 1979, 1984; Poole & McPhee, 1983; Poole et al., 1982; Poole et al., 1985, 1986; Seibold & Meyers, 1986), we seek to uncover and make visible the invisible processes by which people invoke into their day-to-day actions the rules and resources provided by their cultural socializations. Our approach to diversity, grounded in structuration theory, ties us to another purpose. At the most basic level, our research seeks to develop an understanding of predominantly African-American organizations with European culturally based forms; more far-reaching, however, is our objective to learn from the lessons of the African-American organization to develop a better understanding of theorizing about organizations and about the operation of culture in organizational life and organizational change.

C H A P T E R

2 Communication and Two Predominantly African-American Organizations

THE ORGANIZING SCHEME FOR REPORTING OUR DATA, FINDINGS, AND THEORY Members of two organizations serve as the informants for this research. After holistic analysis and theoretic explanation of data from the first organization were accomplished, a second organization was sought for the purposes of validating our observation of and theorizing about the phenomena in question. What follows is a general description of each organization and then a specific description of the individuals interviewed. In this and several subsequent chapters, the data are analyzed and interpreted to develop a set of emergent theoretic models. True to our grounded theoretic stance, we analyzed and interpreted the data and developed our basic emergent models before turning to the literature for explanation and fuller understanding of the patterns we observed. However, to provide the reader with a rich understanding of the patterns in the data, and thus of the theoretic model that emerges, we interweave our data, findings, interpretation, and emergent theory with a continual consideration of the literatures on African-American communication and culture, African-American organizational experiences, Afrocentric theory, and a brief explication of the history of Africans in America. Such presentation accomplishes a more holistic understanding, while avoiding the linear, and thus fragmented and compartmentalized, nature of more “traditional” Eurocentrically-grounded modes of research reporting. 28

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

29

ORGANIZATION 1: THE HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATION The organization that serves as the main data source for this research is a public metropolitan human service organization in the United States. Because any amount of detail about this organization would make its identity obvious to those in the industry, confidentiality concerns preclude further description of the organization or of our relationship with it. Frequent personnel turnover leading to continuously changing demographics, even throughout the data collection process, make it impossible to specify with precision the ethnic distribution of the employees. However, it can be said with confidence that at any given time approximately 90% or more of the employees are African Americans. Other cultural groups represented include Filipinos, European Americans, Africans, Caribbeans, Asians, and Latinos. This organization is structured with a traditional European culturally based centralized hierarchical chain-of-command. The organizational chart consists of an executive team (n = 6) (accountable to a Board of Trustees), middle management, and regular employees. Middle management consists of 24 individuals, representing 17 departments and holding a range of job titles, including Director, Supervisor, and simply Manager. Regular employees of the 17 departments comprise the remainder of the organization. Interviews Due to particular practical circumstances and the nature of the hierarchy, some interviews were conducted individually, whereas others were conducted in groups of 2 to 10 (typically 4 to 6). Two members of the executive team declined to be interviewed. The executive team is therefore represented by individual interviews with the remainder of the team (n = 4). All middle managers (n = 24) were interviewed, either alone or in a group of 2 to 4, in a total of 15 interviews. A cross-sectional sampling (n = 83) of regular employees, representing all 17 departments, were interviewed individually or in groups for a total of 27 interviews with regular employees. In total, 46 interviews were conducted—all by the second author. Individuals were interviewed at their own convenience. Because of the nature of the project and the timeline allowed, individuals were grouped for efficiency as necessary, sometimes combining more than one department. Permission to tape record interviews was not secured; data from the interviews consist of field notes. ORGANIZATION 2: THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The second organization, which served to validate the analysis and emergent theory, is a large (600+ students) inner-city public elementary school in a major metropolitan area in the United States. We provide some summary

30

CHAPTER 2

commentary about the school district in order to fully understand organizational life in this particular elementary school, but confidentiality concerns preclude us from revealing the geographic region. Like many large metropolitan public school districts, the district within which this school exists has been plagued with administrative problems for decades, and student achievement has been consistently low (due not only to administrative problems, but also socioeconomic and political factors). However, this particular school is one of only 5% of schools in the district that has reached its student achievement target goals. At the time of this study, the targets set for this school had been raised above the targets set for the district. Locally, the school has been characterized as progressive and innovative, and its principal has been praised in local newspapers for leadership. Because of the reputation of success (measured as student achievement) held by the school and the reputation of excellence (measured as progress in student achievement) held by the principal, the researchers approached the school specifically for permission to conduct this study. Permission was granted in exchange for a gratis report of the communication issues most salient for the school. This elementary school was seen as particularly appropriate to use for validation purposes because it represents an entirely different organizational type from the human service organization in entirely different circumstances. First, in the day-to-day life of its employees, the elementary school functions as an organizational entity; however, the school exists as but one unit of a larger organization—the school district. As members of an organizational entity embedded within a large organizational system, therefore, the elementary school employees engage in the local dynamics unique to their own school at the same time that they are affected, both directly and indirectly, by the broader dynamics of the school district. In addition, the principal of the school holds a dual role as the highest authority (the “executive”) of the school’s employees and as the lowest authority in the district-wide administrative structure. Second, the school, by all internal and external indicators, was operating as a successful organizational unit in contrast to the human service organization whose functioning was in crisis. Furthermore, as a predominantly African-American organizational system, the entire school district is presumably embedded in the very set of phenomena we seek to explicate here. Indeed, it shows several of the features we see as typical of predominantly African-American organizational systems. And so we are presented with a particularly thorny set of ethical issues. On the one hand, as scholars we deeply feel the need to provide documentation of the difficulties in the school district; on the other, to do so in any detail would reveal the identity of the district and place our informants’ confidentiality at risk. The ready accessibility of newspaper articles about and scholarly case studies of this school district make it particularly

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

31

difficult for us as researchers to refrain from providing a documentation of the particulars of the school system; clearly, such documentation would provide a sound scholarly base to our summary comments. However, the confidentiality of our informants’ commentary must remain our paramount concern. So, it is with regret that we abstain from a thorough documentation of the school district’ s difficulties. Rather, we comment upon these difficulties only as they are necessary and relevant to the data we use for validation of the primary analysis. The structure of the entire school system is a traditional U.S. public school district structure directed by a Superintendent and a Board of Education, with several Assistant Superintendents and other line positions in a centralized vertical hierarchy. The individual school in this investigation mirrors this centralized hierarchical structure, with (in order of status) a principal and an assistant principal with their two-member office staff, teachers (who are designated senior or junior), support staff (reading, math, music, and physical education teachers, counselors, a librarian, a psychologist, and a “change facilitator”), educational aides, and staff that includes maintenance and foodservice. Four support staff positions were vacant at the time of this investigation (a business manager, a computer coordinator, a psychologist, and a social worker). In all, at the time of the investigation, there were 69 employees at the school. Sixty-five were African Americans; four were European Americans. Like the human service organization, the school experiences extremely high personnel turnover (due in part to the burnout of teaching in the inner city). Of the 69 employees, only 55 reported their length of service at the school on our demographic questionnaire; of those 55, almost half (25) were new employees. Interviews Individual interviews were conducted with every staff member, including administration, over a 3-week period. Because of the sensitive nature of privacy concerns, tape recordings were not made; data from these interviews consist of field notes. Interviews were conducted by the second researcher and five research assistants. Because of the size of the organization and the sensitive nature of privacy concerns in the public school system, individual interviews were judged to be most appropriate. Due to the large number and labor-intensive nature of these interviews, doctoral graduate students in organizational communication were recruited as research assistants and were trained by the two authors. (The training and interviewing were designed as research methods course content for which research assistants received credit.) Constant contact was maintained with research assistants, and they were carefully guided as they completed their interviews. To maintain the same position of neutrality from the data that existed from the

32

CHAPTER 2

human service organization, the first author refrained from conducting interviews at the school.

METHOD, INTERPRETATION, AND EMERGENT THEORY For both organizations, members were asked three basic questions in their interviews. They were asked to identify strengths of their organization, challenges for the organization, and recommendations they would make for improvement. Specific topical areas were not provided, aside from the fact that all interviewees in both organizations were quite aware of our communication focus. The categories of commentary (strengths, challenges, and recommendations) were utilized for a well-rounded view of the organization, to make sure that interviewees did not overly focus on one particular area or on negative issues and give a skewed view of the organization. The interviewees were not required to comment on all three areas, just given opportunity. Throughout, wherever excerpts from data are used, they are identified by interview number. Interviews numbered 1 through 47 were conducted at the human service organization; those numbered 48 through 122 were conducted at the school. Due to a minor clerical error, there is no interview numbered “35” from the human service organization. At the school, a survey was also conducted for demographic purposes and to gather information that is not analyzed within the scope of this project. To maintain integrity between these two datasets from the same location, care was taken to assign each individual’s interview the same numeric designation as her or his survey. Because the blank surveys were numbered and divided between members of a research team prior to their dissemination and all were not used, there are no interviews numbered 80, 82, 83, 93, 110, or 113. The appendix contains a table indicating the genders of the interviewees by interview number. Communication Themes To generate an emergent model of organizational function, the second author’s field notes from the human service organization were read by the first author and re-read by the second author, with salient themes regarding fundamental organizational processes identified by each reader as they emerged. Each reader’s themes were then discussed to generate the final set of themes. To avoid the reductionism and fragmentation of meaning inherent in “unitizing” and “categorizing” bits of data and to maximize our understanding of holistic processes, we treated as holistically as possible the stream of field notes that recorded interviewees’ commentary. For the pur-

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

33

poses of contextualizing and organizing the data, each interview session was marked in the typed transcript of field notes; in addition, gender, department, and organizational status or position of interviewees were noted. This seemed to be the most prudent approach to developing an understanding of the processes revealed by the data. Given our approach to communication and organization discussed in chapter 1 (Browning, 1992; Cooren & Taylor, 1997; Stohl, 1997; Taylor, Cooren, Giroux, & Robichaud, 1996; Taylor & Van Every, 2000; Weick, 1969, 1979, 1995), we assume that meaning can only be obtained from a holistic understanding. Therefore, these emergent themes must not be conceptualized as mutually exclusive categories of data; rather, they are distinct identifiable organizational processes that are revealed by the data and that arise from a holistic reading of the data. Any particular individual comment from an interviewee might contain any number of the themes. In fact, some streams of commentary reveal all of them. Indeed, we consider those streams of commentary that reveal multiple processes to be the richest and most valuable in our data because they unveil the simultaneous “multiplicity of substantively distinct processes that are involved in human communication” (Babrow, 1998, p. 152; see also Babrow, 1993). Human communication in context is a multidimensional tapestry of processes that can be seen as “substantively distinct” only when teased out conceptually. Unfortunately, the research process of “teasing out” often functions to strip data of its meaning-in-context, and so we find streams of data that contain insight into intertwined multiple processes to be particularly valuable. Themes. After individually reading through typed transcripts of the field notes from the human service organization (which had been recorded by the second author), the two researchers discussed at length their individual impressions of processes revealed in the data (the second author providing the invaluable context of her holistic view of the organization from her close relationship with it). A set of themes was agreed upon. Initially, 15 distinct themes were identified from the human service organization interview data: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

own orientation to work others’ orientation to work own orientation to relationships others’ orientation to relationships communication interpersonal dynamics organizational identity professional identity

34

CHAPTER 2

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

ethnic/racial identity individual human development leadership management power authority control.

(The order in which these are presented here is for convenience in explaining their collapse into theoretic constructs.) Member Check, Trustworthiness, and Confirmability. At the close of her contact with the human service organization, the second author presented a summary of her findings to both the CEO and the organizational membership for their validation. There was consensus that the issues identified in her report, and more precisely conceptualized here as themes, were an accurate reflection of the organization. These themes are, of course, essentially the same set of issues that appeared in the second author’s summary report to the human service organization, validated by the first author’s independent generation of the same basic set of issues. We initiated our contact with the elementary school used for field validation after this full thematic analysis was completed. Following data collection at the school, and analysis of those transcripts, the principal and the organizational membership (staff and teachers) were presented with the constructs as descriptors of salient communication issues in the school. There was consensus that this set of constructs was an accurate reflection of organizational communication at the school. Finally, as an assessment of the trustworthiness and confirmability of our analysis, the third contributor, who had not participated in the analysis itself, searched the unmarked transcripts for examples of the themes and constructs. These examples, as well as others agreed upon by the two authors, are used as illustrations throughout the chapters. Theoretic Development Following the collapse of themes into constructs, as follows, an emergent theory was inductively generated from those constructs. Then the process of interpenetrating structures (as compared with the baseline model in chap. 1, Fig. 1.1) was examined to identify unique communication patterns arising from it. The emergent model is presented later in this chapter. Chapter 3 explores the rules and resources of African-American culture revealed by the data; and communication patterns arising from interpenetrating

35

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

structures are presented in chapters 4 and 5. It was after the communication patterns were identified and the analysis considered complete that the data from the school were collected for validation purposes. Typed transcripts of the field notes from the school interviews were prepared. The two researchers read through those transcripts, discussed their impressions, and together noted where each construct and each communication pattern was reflected. All five theoretic constructs were found in evidence, the emergent model was seen to be operating, and the communication patterns were seen to occur. Excerpts from the school interviews that validate each of the five constructs, the emergent theory, and the communication patterns are provided alongside excerpts from the healthcare organization interviews throughout the chapters. Emergent Constructs The 15 themes were collapsed to provide the most meaningful balance between a thorough representation of meanings in the data and a theoretically rich and conceptually manageable set of constructs. The resulting five constructs are defined next with examples of their occurrence in the data provided. Excerpts from the data are referenced by interview number. Table 2.1 summarizes the collapse of themes into constructs. Relational/Task Orientation. This construct represents the collapse of themes 1–4; these themes were collapsed because they were seen to embody individuals’ basic point of reference when attempting to coordinate TABLE 2.1 The Collapse of Themes Into Constructs Construct Relational/Task Orientation

Communication and Interpersonal Dynamics Cultural Identity and Human Development

Leadership and Management Power/Authority and Control

Themes own orientation to work others’ orientation to work own orientation to relationships others’ orientation to relationships communication interpersonal dynamics organizational identity professional identity ethnic/racial identity individual human development leadership management power authority control

36

CHAPTER 2

their actions to organize with others. The identification of this construct arose from the frequency and intensity with which people explained their own and others’ understanding of their work and their own and others’ understanding of relationships as a primary reference point for understanding organizational issues. As a description of the African-American cultural system, relational orientation is placed first in the name of the construct, reflecting the African-American cultural value of the primacy of relationships. (This is discussed in more detail later.) For example, comments from individuals in these group interviews at the human service organization reveal a strong relational orientation, which is viewed as positive: People are not respected or appreciated or treated as though they matter. (Interview 5) [Recommendation:] Show love and appreciation for staff. (Interview 9) We try to work as a team and help each other out where necessary. (Interview 25) We have a good working relationship with one another; try to be sympathetic to the needs of others and provide support. . . . Communal model has helped us maintain a cohesive unit (because we spend a lot of time away from home). (Interview 26) We work well together, as a team/family, very cohesive. I like my job. The managers are very sweet; show concern when one has personal problems. . . . Irrespective of stress, we find time to socialize outside after work. (Interview 27)

In addition, the human service organization interviewees also made comments that reveal strong task orientations: Operations must be supportive of the kind of services one provides. (Interview 3) Need additional staff, but no adequate working space to accommodate . . . working conditions must be restored. (Interview 5) Need an additional person to work with me; this will free me up to do some of the . . . work that is necessary. (Interview 17) Work and interact well together in terms of strengths, knowledge, and skills. (Interview 19) Sometimes one have to take work home to catch up. (Interview 38) I take my job very seriously and do my best with what I have to do it with. (Interview 40) No matter what you are doing the [client] comes first and should be attended to promptly. . . . [Recommendations:] Restructuring of functions and communication with other departments (. . . to reduce mistakes and

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

37

workload). . . . Improve working relationships between departments in terms of accuracy and workflow. . . . Improvement in work area to provide quality services and maintain accuracy to reduce lengthy wait; need additional . . . clerk which could be a tremendous help. (Interview 43) Need additional staff. Down here it is like Grand Central station. Every phone is ringing and everybody wants supplies at the same time; not enough hands. . . . Need [staff] accountability in ordering of supplies and equipment which is out of control. (Interview 47)

Finally, the human service organization interviewees made comments that reveal the interrelation between relationship and task orientations: Encourage interdependence and mutual responsibility within every division to get the job done. (Interview 12) Good working team and interconnectedness of employees. (Interview 21) Very holistic model toward our work environment. (Interview 26) We help one another with the workload. (Interview 27) Staff working together for better [client service] [indicated as a strength]. (Interview 28) We need more competent staff with a teamwork concept. We need cooperation and an understanding of teamwork and positive attitude toward the work. (Interview 31) Team concept needs improvement in [this department]. A healthier group would produce more healthy communication and produce healthy results. (Interview 38) Manager shows interest, cares, and tries to get the proper tools to you to get the job done. (Interview 42) If everyone work as a team, the workflow will be better. We are like a link in a chain, and if one part don’t function the rest don’t. (Interview 45) Do what we can to get along with each other and get the work done. (Interview 47)

Commentary from the school interviews also illustrates the themes of relational orientation, task orientation, and a combination of the two: Need more team spirit and less segregation. (Interview 48) Everyone needs to feel valued and really part of the team. (Interview 50) Teachers working together on same grade level for the good of teaching each student to perform their best. (Interview 54) Hard work/working toward goals. (Interview 56) Staff do their jobs and work together. (Interview 57)

38

CHAPTER 2

The entire staff—we support each other. (Interview 69) Strong administration. [Administrator is] hard worker—makes us work hard. (Interview 71) [Administrator] very efficient—very serious about work—gets job done— people oriented, stop and has conversation with teachers. (Interview 75) [Strength:] cohesiveness among the staff. (Interview 76) Staff really works together, loose ends chain: someone is the link. (Interview 81) Supportive group. (Interview 84) Students are achieving their goals. (Interview 85) All communicate together. Work as team—keep kids out of hallway, work with [administrator]. (Interview 88) Supportive staff. (Interview 114) Good working relationships with coworkers. (Interview 112) [Administrator] friendly and helpful. (Interview 117) Teachers work together well, help each other out. (Interview 122)

Communication and Interpersonal Dynamics. This construct represents the collapse of themes 5 and 6 and reflects the process of coordinating one’s actions with the actions of others to organize to accomplish tasks and manage/build/maintain interpersonal relationships. Frequent commentary that directly referenced communication and the dynamics of interpersonal relationships led to the identification of this construct. For example, Big communication problem throughout [organization] overshadows departments that are effective. . . . I want to have faith in the process. Communication up the ladder is one-way, and communication down the ladder—we say what we think/feel but we’re not heard. (Interview 6) No communication—when there is communication, it is very negative. . . . [Recommendation:] Honest communication and more administrative support. (Interview 14) Communication in [this department] is difficult. Employees should address one another respectfully and directly not just drop innuendoes, etc. (Interview 16) [Need] better communication from senior management level. (Interview 17) When problems arise, [employees] should talk directly to supervisor in charge vs. spreading rumors and building tension in department. (Interview 18) Employees relate well with one another. (Interview 20)

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

39

[Executive manager named] inaccessible, not much contact or communication with employees. [Other executive named] projects a demeanor of inaccessibility—no communication. (Interview 21) No communication at [organization name]. People expect you to do certain things without communicating their desire. (Interview 26) Loosely organized communication system—don’t know what is expected of you. (Interview 30) [Recommendation:] Communication improvement. (Interview 31) [Organization] communicated as a family, even if you had differences they were ironed out among ourselves and moved on. However the underlying tension today is so deep it has caused, in some respects, feelings of being uncared and unwanted. (Interview 33) [I am] treated as a subordinate or object in an oppressive manner. . . . [Need] more effective communication between [specific type staff] and [specific department] professionals concerning [specific tasks] to. (Interview 45) Entire communication system in [the organization] needs improvement; need to ensure that information filters to all departments. (Interview 46) People at [organization name] don’t know how to communicate. They talk to you as a child. (Interview 47)

At the school, interviewees also frequently referenced communication and interpersonal dynamics: [Challenge:] the interpersonal relationships . . . always called “the [school name] family” but not treated as family. Family recognizes shortcomings and provides opportunities for improvement. (Interview 50) Have a problem with communication. (Interview 52) [Need] better communication—e.g., Not knowing exactly what is going on— why I wasn’t informed. (Interview 53) [Strength:] a lot of parent–teacher communication. [Note: This was not universally agreed upon; others said exactly the opposite.] (Interview 78) A lot of favoritism . . . a lot of “pettiness.” Teachers don’t feel appreciated or respected; talked to as if we are a child. . . . (Interview 80) Sometimes administration not approachable, people intimidated. (Interview 95) Good communication with each other. (Interview 99) Good interaction at meetings. . . . [As a new employee, I] can communicate better with teachers. Leadership does not communicate well with teachers. Language, the way it’s presented. Don’t communicate with parents. . . . Things are not explained. (Interview 109)

40

CHAPTER 2

Cultural Identity and Human Development. This construct represents the collapse of themes 7–10. These themes were judged to be similar, and thus collapsible, because they all reference issues that position the individual relative to the organizational system. In other words, this construct represents the way in which organizational members’ commentary reveal their thinking about how they and/or others are integrated (or “fit”) into the organizational system. The term cultural identity is used to represent themes 7–9: organizational identity (e.g., loyalty, commitment, etc.), professional identity (e.g., occupational pride, professional ethics, etc.), ethnic/racial identity (e.g., what it means to be Black working at Black institution, etc.). Human development refers to own or others’ personal individual growth in two areas: task-based skills and relationship-based skills. The following comments from the human service organization interviews reveal the organizational identity theme: If every manager resigned, the [organization] would still run; employees are committed to the cause. (Interview 6) Very dedicated and devoted staff that has the [organization’s] interest and is very creative. (Interview 13) [Strength:] People who are dedicated, loyal, and committed to the vision of the [organization]. (Interview 16) People are not just coming here to collect a paycheck—people care and are committed to the mission. (Interview 17) I love [organization name] and love my work. Been here 25 years. (Interview 26) [The organization] comes out of a great history. (Interview 34) We have been committed to the mission of the [organization]. [In this group, one individual had a 31-year tenure, another had a 27-year tenure.] (Interview 39) Some employees don’t take pride in the [organization’s] mission, contribute to the dysfunctions; they don’t care and are only trying to get over. (Interview 47)

These comments from the human service organization interviews reveal the professional identity theme: Need staff with some professionalism. (Interview 6) [Strength:] professional courtesy—try to respect each other because we have to work together as a team. (Interview 7) Improve professional ethic of [specific type] staff; should follow protocol and respect judgment of [department] staff. (Interview 12)

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

41

[Specific department] has a need to feel appreciated because of their specific [specialized] tasks. (Interview 16) Administration don’t have the professional appearance that it should. . . . People come in the office and want to socialize vs. maintaining a professional appearance. (Interview 19) No professional work ethic of executive team. (Interview 20) Employees are seemingly just workers not professionals. (Interview 21) Unprofessional work ethic/performance is not reprimanded. For example, a [staff person] leaving a [client] [in need] to take a friend to the airport, without anyone else knowing how to [serve the client]. (Interview 22) All [department employees] must be treated fairly and paid equitably for competence and years of experience, especially those who are faithful in tenure. (Interview 32) [In this department], we are concerned people; we have to be because of the [critical importance of our function] for the whole [organization]. (Interview 39) Need adequate supplies in [department] to do a professional job. (Interview 45) Years of experience with combined team. . . . Very mature individuals and professionals that work in [department]. (Interview 46)

These comments from the human service organization interviews reveal the ethnic/racial identity theme: Need a communal awareness with a sense of pride to help us value our own system of care. (Interview 4) We have responsibility to be competent, respectful, and accountable to the people of this community. (Interview 9) [Organization name] has lost touch with the community; their reputation/image in the community is poor and therefore [they lose business]. (Interview 15) People stay because of their affiliation and commitment to a predominantly Black institution. (Interview 16) Commitment and faithfulness to the [organization] and the community to help them to grow. (Interview 26) Enjoy working with Black [clients] for Black institution. (Interview 32) [Strength:] Working with and for your own people. . . . Still take pride in working for a predominantly Black [organization] that is located in my community. (Interview 33)

Finally, the following comments from the human service organization interviews reveal the theme of human development:

42

CHAPTER 2

Need recognition program for employee performance. (Interview 16) Challenges that I face at [organization name] helped my problem-solving skills and leadership. It takes a lot of guts, skill, and resources to work here. Opportunities at [organization name] are good. The people here don’t look at me as just another ethnic person of color, but as part of the team. [Note: This individual is Filipino.] . . . Need to offer more education to [department] staff. (Interview 18) [Employees] need refresher courses on certification and improvement on compliance documentation. (Interview 28) No high turnover in the department, we seem to be most consistent. (Interview 42) The employees are the vital human resources that make this [organization] work. (Interview 45)

In interviews from the elementary school, we also see copious expressions of organizational identity, professional identity, ethnic/racial (community) identity, and human development (respectively): Need more committed people on staff. (Interview 48) Teachers’ dedication—sharing a lot on grade level and between grade levels. (Interview 78) [Challenges:] keeping good teachers. Children’s behavior. [I am a] concerned/committed teacher making sure we as educators and parents put needs of children first, ours second. Get into meeting, see the expression and concern of teachers not here for that when asked to get on committees after 3:30. I stay until 4:30; don’t get paid if I don’t finish, stay until finished. 7:00-8:00 p.m. finish. Before [this administration], at 3:15 [I was] out the door with the children. Confidence in staying after-hours additional was a challenge but now is a plus. Commit but don’t get paid. [We need] more after school programs. [Administrator is here] until 6:30–7:00. If things don’t go their way, teachers always want to leave without notice. Hire in contract to abide by that location, attitudes of children, want to leave, not fair to children. (Interview 120) [School name] is one of the best elementary schools in the elementary division. There is always something exciting going on at [school name] which will help both parents and students. (Interview 89) Dedicated staff. (Interview 60) Teacher dedication. (Interview 77) Dedicated teachers committed to teaching children. (Interview 79) Lack of professionalism in venting about other colleagues with someone else other than the person. (Interview 50) People aren’t given professional courtesy—work taken for granted. Not sensitive to the professional needs of others. (Interview 95)

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

43

Strong partnerships with churches/community. (Interview 99) [You have] “beehives” when you work in the Black organizations—“queen bee” and “workers.” Educated, but may not fit in. (Interview 116) Community pitches in. Everyone knows school, lots of organizations. Interactive. [Administrator] seeks help. Community gathering. Scouts, etc. (Interview 72) School morale very negative—teachers feel beaten up by administration and parents. Not much appreciation/recognition for their dedication. . . . [Need] some type of appreciation service for teachers. (Interview 78)

Leadership and Management. This construct represents the combination of themes 11 and 12. The commentary that reflect these themes references concrete day-to-day activities of managers as they go about doing their work, regarding both their employees’/subordinates’ activities (leadership) and less interpersonally immediate matters (management) (i.e., budget, materials, policies, procedures, etc.). People now in management who don’t have management skills. (Interview 1) Middle manager of this area does not manage adequately. . . . Decisions what to buy does not come through [department] manager, who really knows the priority of needs, but not given the respect to do so. . . . [Organization] needs managers who are competent and have knowledge of their area of expertise. (Interview 5) Leadership is strong, works to put processes in place. . . . Manager dealing with things outside of his scope. (Interview 6) Supervisor is seasoned, knows information inside and out, bends over backward to help her employees to get work done. (Interview 14) People need to see exemplary management to begin to build trust. (Interview 16) [Need] better communication from senior management level; started out with staff meeting once a month and it has fallen off—has become ineffective because of nonparticipatory posture by managers. (Interview 17) Managers should watch what they say across departments, because it affects the morale of the employees; internal department problems ought not be spread outside the department. (Interview 18) Supervisor don’t work as a team; out sick a lot, and likes to dictate to employees instead of pitching in. (Interview 35) Good manager over [department]; she works well with us. She listens, is very supportive, and follows through with complaints. (Interview 39) Immediate supervisor of [department] is a cause of a lot of the problems that employees are experiencing. (Interview 40)

44

CHAPTER 2

Manager is excellent; she knows the area well; she is a real resource. If she does not know she calls the appropriate parties and will get the answer in 24 hours. (Interview 41)

These themes of leadership and management are also apparent in the school interviews: [Need] new leadership policy—too many followers and too many spies. (Interview 48) Change micro-management—everything must be approved of by [administrator] with line of approval. (Interview 50) [Strength:] leadership. (Interview 58) [Strength:] the leadership. (Interview 63) [Strength:] good leadership. (Interview 64) [Challenge:] Leadership—unfair, not honest, misleading, encourages gossip. (Interview 65) Physical plant kept—fiscal management done well. . . . Human resource management is good. [Administrator] able to set up wide range of services—allow a lot of versatility—educational opportunities for the children. (Interview 95) Good leadership [administrators’ names]. (Interview 96) [Strength:] Leadership—[administrator]. (Interview 100) Leadership follows standards. . . . Leadership do not communicate well with teachers. . . . There should be more leadership. (Interview 109) Leadership great. (Interview 114) [Strength:] leadership firm and stern. . . . This school will be documented and used as a model and design for everybody—because of the leadership and results of the leadership. (Interview 116) Fair-minded leadership from both [administrators]. (Interview 121)

Power/Authority and Control. Finally, this construct is closely related to the construct of leadership and management. Power/Authority and Control is comprised of themes 13–15. The commentary supporting this construct refers to a distinctly different level of abstraction than Leadership/ Management. Themes 13–15 all reference foundational or underlying philosophies, attitudes, and ideas regarding the use of power and/or authority and the exertion of control. They also refer to executives’ or managers’ practices that are perceived by their employees/subordinates to be an overt use (or abuse) of their power, their authority, or their ability to control others. Finally, they might refer to an individual without legitimate (jobtitle) authority exercising power over others. The data from the human service organization illustrate the construct of power/authority and control:

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

45

[Executive manager] calls a division meeting for the first time to communicate reduction and conveys in a dehumanizing way that “if you cannot comply with these reductions, just attach your resignation to the request.” (Interview 14) Management doing vindictive things to employees because of personality vs. rewarding for performance; seemingly good and strong people are preyed upon and ultimately dismissed. (Interview 22) Unclear and undocumented policies of disciplinary actions are arbitrarily decided; dishonesty in communication—multiple contradictions and manipulation by senior management team (employees are promised one thing and something totally different is done, it’s disheartening). (Interview 23) Administrators want things overnight, yet unwilling to listen to problems. (Interview 26) Manager has to get approval for everything, just a middle person with no power. Manager don’t control the scheduling of [employees]. Has to wait on the [person higher in hierarchy] who schedules based on favoritism. Present administration operates like they don’t work for or with us but is against us. (Interview 33) Fearful communication is strong, because of at-will firing. Thus perception becomes managing by intimidation. (Interview 39) Waiting for [necessary supplies/equipment] for [severe need] is not met with a sense of urgency. . . . if [client] is a friend or family of senior management; these are given more privilege. (Interview 43) Present leadership is very poor, don’t seem to care about employees. Talking to [executive manager] about critical issues and priorities about department, one have a sense that [the manager] doesn’t care. Don’t understand why [executuve manager] has hands in every area and why [department] problems/concerns are reported directly to [executuve manager] instead of VP [division]. (This directive was given two months ago.) (Interview 45) Past administrators have come in and raped the [organization] of resources, but person was not charged or [executives] didn’t bring no action against them. (Interview 47)

Likewise, feelings about (especially resentment of) exertions of power, authority, and control are prominent in the interviews at the school: Change micro-management—everything must be approved of by [administrator] with line of approval. Copies [meaning, cc:] of letters or memos inappropriate. Limits professional growth. . . . [Administrator] abuses time of teachers—there are repercussions if you leave a meeting. (Interview 50)

46

CHAPTER 2

[Recommendation: administration should] learn how to share power and be comfortable with it. (Interview 58) [Recommendation:] Disseminate the power—administration have hands in too many things. Give opportunity, pass the power, let others make decisions. Give teachers more freedom, let them breathe without permission. (Interview 65) [Challenge:] Staff. Older teachers feel threatened in acceptance of authority. Want consistency. . . . [School district] demand but old teachers don’t know. Threatened. Authority usurped. (Interview 92) The [administrator] sets the tone. Needs to release/relinquish some . . . control. (Interview 80)

African-American Communication and Culture A variety of literatures might be considered to contextualize and more deeply understand these emergent constructs in the framework of the predominantly African-American organization. We begin by contextualizing these data with that literature that is most generally descriptive and progress to that which has more depth and theoretic richness. We begin with the descriptive literature on African-American communication and culture. As our understanding deepens in subsequent chapters, we discuss the more specific descriptive literature on contemporary African-American experiences in dominant culture organizations, the small but important literature on predominantly Black organizations, the Afrocentric theory literature, and the historical and critical literature of the African experience in America. The literatures on African-American culture and African-American communication are relatively small as compared to the expanse of communication-related literatures. Given our nonessentialist approach to culture, it is important at the outset to point out that we do not conceive of all Americans with African ancestors to be culturally embedded in “AfricanAmerican culture,” nor do we wish to perpetrate here the myth of a monolithic “Black community” in America. On the other hand, there does exist a shared pool of symbolic systems available to African-American persons from which they may draw at the individual and group levels. Scholars have documented manifestations of African-American culture as particular values, norms, beliefs, practices, behaviors, and other such constructs. Clearly, some individuals are socialized more deeply into this cultural system than others; among other factors, such socialization would influence the extent to which an individual could be expected to draw on the AfricanAmerican cultural pool of symbolic systems. African-American Cultural Values. Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau (1993) synthesize the literature in African-American communication, arguing that conversation is a key aspect of culture (Philipsen, 1987). By focusing on

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

47

characteristic patterns of African-American conversation, they provide a cogent and comprehensive description of African-American ethnic culture as it emerges through these social patterns, which are in turn co-created and maintained by that culture. Because of the comprehensive and exhaustive nature of Hecht et al. (1993) review and analysis of literature, we rely heavily on this source here.1 We begin our discussion with an overview of core symbols that “represent stylistic nodes or tendencies in AfricanAmerican culture” (Hecht et al.’s, 1993, p. 95). Drawing most notably from the work of Rose (1982/1983) and White and Parham (1990), Hecht et al. (1993) derive five core symbols for African-American culture: Sharing, Uniqueness, Positivity/Emotional Vitality, Realism, and Assertiveness. Further, they conceptualize communication styles as simultaneously expressing, shaping, and recreating these core symbols. They insightfully point out dialectical tensions between these symbols: African Americans seem to face the competing pressures of sharing both a common identity with the group and a strong drive for individual style. Similarly, they are presented with the reality of life in the United States but are oriented by cultural style toward a positive outlook. (p. 96)

These tensions can clearly be seen in the data from the human service organization in this study. Respondents express strong desire for group involvement or teamwork as well as a deep commitment to the (Black) community. They just as strongly decry the lack of individual reward and recognition that they perceive in their organizational system. Similarly, respondents are candidly forthright in their description of the difficulties in the organization (realism) while at the same time professing their hope and commitment to a better future (positivity). This is addressed further later, with excerpts from the data sets. The Emergent Model Once the themes were collapsed and the constructs were solidified, we turned to the question of how they were related. The nature of Relational/ Task Orientation seemed to differ from that of the other constructs; commentary revealing the themes that give rise to this construct did not seem 1 Hecht et al. (1993) is now available in a second edition (Hecht, Jackson, & Ribeau, 2003). Their emphasis on identity, rules, and strategies remains strong. This new edition has updated literature surrounding financial and social issues and has added a chapter on relationships (including gender, family, intimate friendship, and workplace relationships). Of particular note is their treatment of communication that uses the term problematic in theoretical ways that deeply resonate with our model using that term. At the time of our writing and conceptualizing, the second edition of Hecht et al. (2003) was not available for our use. The reader is strongly advised to consult this excellent new edition for deeper insights into the patterns apparent in our data and for a deep understanding of African-American communication and culture in general.

1

48

CHAPTER 2

to reflect the struggle that was characteristic of commentary revealing the themes giving rise to the other four constructs. As the basic intersection between social coordination and task accomplishment, and as the human actors’ basic point of reference for interacting with others in the organizational system, Relational/Task Orientation was placed at the center and conceptualized as the vantage point from which the organizational actors’ perceptions of the other four constructs were based. Indeed, relationship and task orientations may be seen as our central entree into the process whereby human beings invoke structures into systems. Relationship and task orientations are conceptualized here to be the basic cognitive mechanism for invoking structure into system. Organizational communication is seen here to be the nexus wherein the social coordination of human action connects with the accomplishment of institutionalized tasks—conversation and text, respectively. Relationship/ task orientation is central in our data and central to individuals’ processing of social interaction. Theoretically, then, this placement of relationship/task orientation (of both self and other) at the center of the model and as the basic cognitive mechanism for invoking structure into system is supported by Taylor and Van Every’s (2000) treatment of social cognition. As individual cognition, relationship/task orientation exists here as the interiorization of the conversation. As we examined the ways in which the four remaining constructs interrelate with the first and with one another, it became clear that the interviewees’ commentary reflected their wrestling with an extraordinarily intricate set of intertwined complexities in their interactions with their peers; the organizational culture; their ethnic culture; race; their professional identities; their managers and leaders; and the exercise of power, authority and control. This process of, in the course of their interviews, grappling with the difficulty of describing these intricacies revealed a need for a specific term to denote these intricate interrelated processes. The term problematic (in noun form) was coined to provide a linguistic term that specifically denotes identifiable sets of particularly complex, effortful, and often troublesome interactional processes that manifest most saliently in human relationships in an organizational system. These would be translated into the arenas of conversations and texts in Taylor’s model (Taylor et al., 1996; Taylor & Van Every, 2000). Thus, the constructs Communication/Interpersonal Dynamics, Cultural Identity/Human Development, Leadership/Management, and Power/Authority/ Control are seen as four sets of problematics, the perception and the interactive management (invoking structures into systems) of which are individually driven by Relational and Task Orientations. The four problematics are arenas of interaction (conversations and texts) through which organization emerges. The organizational culture is the social reality emergent from this interaction. The mapping of the organization that occurs in interaction thus

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

49

FIG. 2.1. The emergent model.

exteriorizes cognition to create the socially distributed cognition that persists as the holistic organizational context, or culture. The printed format forces a flat, still picture; an adequate presentation of the model would be spherical and in motion. The model, presented in Fig. 2.1, depicts these four sets of problematics as emerging from Relational/ Task Orientations in the center of the model as spokes emerge from a wheel. Remember that a problematic is specifically defined as a set of interactional processes. The four emergent problematics rotate in three dimensions around the center and simultaneously mutually influence one another in multiply circular fashion. The order and position in which we have depicted these problematics influencing one another have stemmed from our reading of our data as the most important and salient set of processes. The beginning point is arbitrary. To highlight the importance of power, authority, and control as the most troublesome and particularly salient problematic that we have observed in our data, we place that set of processes at the top of the picture. Note that the arrows represent simultaneous mutual influence among the four problematics. The model can be used to describe one individual’s experience of an organization as well as it can be used to describe one organization’s culture validating Taylor and Van Every’s (2000) flatland view. Orientations to relationship and to task, which exist in the organizational system in varying degrees of homogeneity–heterogeneity, drive problematics of Power, Authority, and Control, problematics regarding Communication and Interpersonal Dynam-

50

CHAPTER 2

ics, problematics of Cultural Identity and Human Development, and problematics of Leadership and Management. All four problematics mutually influence one another, ad infinitum. The richness of the mutual influence that exists among all of these problematics can only begin to be seen by extending the relationships beyond one step. For example, power problematics influence cultural identity and human development problematics through the problematics of communication; leadership problematics influence communication problematics through the way they play out in the power and authority problematics. Although all of these problematics are driven by the basic relationship and task orientations at the center of the model, they also rotate three-dimensionally around that center so that at top speed it can be difficult to tell where one begins and another ends. It is in the movement of the model that its richness exists. All of these processes occur simultaneously in constant flux, and communication, in addition to being extracted as a central problematic, permeates the entire system as its epistemological and metaphysical ground. Finally, we must remember the foundational assumption that culture suffuses the basic orientation, the problematics, and the ways in which these relate with each other. Interconnectedness of Problematics and Cognitive Mechanism. The four problematics identified in our data are, as described, inextricably intertwined and simultaneously co-occurring. Indeed, in the data from the human service organization, the entire model can be seen in excerpts from the stream of interview notes. Improve managerial interaction and give respect to department managers at meetings—speaking to a person as an adult not a child; this will build morale and foster lasting relationships. Improvement in the work/professional ethic of [executive person named] who intimidates employees. Stop the exodus of competent people with experience and knowledge who end up leaving because they are invalidated or frustrated. Make it possible for managers to participate in the development process, and respect their decisions/judgments. (Interview 11)

In this example, we see the importance of a participative model of decision making and development grounded in a collaborative model of task and relationship orientation. The value of relationships is specifically mentioned. We see the importance of organizational and professional identity in the specific reference to professional ethics and in the desire to be included in decision making. The activities of managers are specifically mentioned, and power, authority, and control are apparent here because it is the upper management tier who are being asked to act with respect and inclusion. One middle manager stated, Employees are very distrustful of managers because of history of showing favoritism and ignoring others who were similarly talented. . . . Training

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

51

and development has not been forthcoming for [department named] and other departments like [other departments named]. (Interview 16)

Here, interpersonal dynamics between employees and managers are characterized as distrustful. A task orientation is apparent in the reference to training and development as needing improvement. This call for employee development is also an example of the problematic of identity and human development. The specific reference to the activities of managers and to the abuse of their power through perceived favoritism completes this example of the model. Another example of abuses of power that also illustrates the whole of the model is provided by two regular employees discussing their supervisor: Administrative supervisor initially very domineering of what she wanted instead of listening to employee concerns. It seems like she is working against the employees’ suggestions; causes low morale; employees getting fired for silly little things; things are getting out of hand. When she makes a mistake, she blames it on the employees. She doesn’t listen to us, communicates in a nonconcerned manner; gives her solution, but don’t let employees provide input to resolve [department] problems. Communicates autocratically, instead of educating regarding new rules, etc. and employees have to conform or else things have to be done her way. A lot of inconsistencies in her leadership. (Interview 34)

These employees specifically invoke the problematics of communication, management/leadership, and power/authority/control. They reveal a collaborative model of task and relationship orientation regarding their interest in being educated about changes in task issues simultaneous with their interest in building a relationship with their supervisor. They also reveal human development/organizational identity issues as they describe their difficulty fitting into the organization under this supervisor’s leadership. The next example is also quite lengthy. This commentary was provided by one individual (interviewed alone) in response to our question regarding recommendations for changes for the organization. Clarify processes of operation: establish orientation and proper guidelines—how do workers fit in? Good workers prone to burnout. Build structure of each division. What is the format for preparing an ID badge? Guidelines are not appropriately applied. Provide orientation to the employees. There should be collaboration with [appropriate division named] and [this department to] define orientation requirements for each area. Need more direction from the VP [division named]. The gap between function and relationship—undermining of position and self because of issues of self-esteem and power. (Interview 30)

52

CHAPTER 2

This individual specifically references power, task issues (divisional structures, guidelines, etc.), human development and organizational identification, communication, and management (in the form of requesting direction from superiors in the hierarchy). African-American Cultural Values A deeper consideration of Hecht et al.’s (1993) five core symbols for AfricanAmerican culture (Sharing, Uniqueness, Positivity/Emotional Vitality, Realism, and Assertiveness) offers insight into the holistic model of problematics and cognitive mechanism for these organizations. The dialectical tensions among the five cultural symbols are manifested in the relationships among the problematics. One such manifestation can be seen in the tension between the highly relationally-oriented approach to organizational life that simultaneously exists with the desire to be recognized for one’s individual achievements and to grow as an individual (the problematic of cultural identity and human development in Fig. 2.1). Another manifestation can be seen between the problematics of leadership/management and power/authority/control; although strong leadership is clearly appreciated and even requested by organizational members, overt uses of power are mistrusted. Abuses of power arise that strengthen this mistrust. This phenomenon is discussed at some length in chapter 4. Sharing. This core symbol can be defined as endorsing the group, and is considered to be a reflection of collectivism (Hecht et al., 1993, citing Hofstede, 1980 and Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). “Interconnectedness, interrelatedness, sharing, and interdependence are viewed as central and unifying concepts” (Hecht et al., 1993, p. 97). Others, such as Boykin (1983), have referred to this value as communalism. The statements that powerfully reveal relational/task orientation as important constructs in both the data set for the human service organization and that for the school reflect this high degree of the value of interdependence. Interconnectedness and interdependence as organizationally important are discussed in chapter 3. In addition, communication and interpersonal relationships are of primary importance in both the organizations studied and both data sets are also replete with other evidence of collectivism. These issues are also discussed at some length in chapter 3. Uniqueness. The value of Uniqueness endorses the individual. According to Rose (1982/1983) African-American children are commonly socialized to “do their best and not compare themselves to others” (Hecht et al., 1993, p. 102). Boykin (1983) used the term expressive individualism. This value can be seen in the data from both the human service organization and the

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

53

school as individuals describe their own individual talents and abilities, particularly in the face of others who might try to “bring them down.” The model (Fig. 2.1) incorporates this within the problematic of cultural identity and human development; several individuals commented on their own unique contribution to the organization—a reflection on the way in which they see themselves “fitting into” the organizational system. In both our data sets, organizational members express a great deal of interest in both developing their own talents and skills and being recognized for them. In fact, a lack of recognition and appreciation for one’s contributions is cited as a major source of dissatisfaction—more so than salary: [Need] recognition that employees are valued, build trust with employees with a sense of caring; at least listening to them. (Interview 4) Show love and appreciation for staff. (Interview 9) Need recognition program for employee performance. (Interview 16) No appreciation for work done: “just do what I tell you to do.” (Interview 20) Senior management show more respect and appreciation for employees’ talents and abilities. (Interview 25) Incentives, motivation, and appreciation necessary if salary is not forthcoming. (Interview 28) [Need to hold] staff meetings to show appreciation and tell us what plan of action is. (Interview 40) Show appreciation for those who have been faithful and given their time and ability to this place. (Interview 45)

Positivity and Emotional Vitality. Here, Hecht et al. (1993) draw upon a number of scholars to support their depiction as a core symbol of AfricanAmerican culture the value of positive outlook, openness, and high expressiveness. “African-American culture is infused with a spirit (a knowledge that there is more to life than sorrow, which will pass) and a renewal in sensuousness, joy, and laughter” (p. 102). In fact, expressiveness is described as a basic survival strategy (Rainwater, 1967; Wyne, White, & Coop, 1974). Positivity and emotional/spiritual vitality are in great evidence at the human service organization through references to God and prayer, as well as direct expressions of a hopeful future. . . . God has kept this [organization] open for a reason . . . need to pray for [executive manager] so that [the person] can do the right thing. (Interview 17) [We are] not performing in the way God is calling us to. (Interview 22) Staff working together for better [client service]. (Interview 28)

54

CHAPTER 2

Hope to see improvement in structure plagued with injustices and inequities. (Interview 32) People want to see a change and want it to get better . . . (Interview 34) . . . it will take everyone to make this place work, but it has to be made better. . . . It used to be a pleasure to come to work, but now I have to pray and read the Bible before I come in to [work]. (Interview 40) Need constant prayer and strong faith to work [here]. (Interview 44)

Expressions of loyalty and commitment to the organization, encompassed under the problematic of culture identity and human development, are also manifestations of positivity at the human service organization. [Strength:] The people, their endurance, commitment, and ability “to accept the things we cannot change”; irrespective of working conditions and environment, which is deplorable. (Interview 5) If every manager resigned the [organization] would still run, employees are committed to the cause. (Interview 6) Irrespective of limited equipment and materials, staff is committed and striving to do a better job. (Interview 9) Team effort by those who are committed and have been working here a long time—they have not abandoned ship, they want to see [the organization] succeed. (Interview 11) Team workers are very caring and committed. (Interview 14) [strength:] People who are committed and dedicated to the [organization]. (Interview 15) People are dedicated, loyal, and committed to [this] division of the [organization]. . . . People stay because of their affiliation and commitment to a predominantly Black institution. (Interview 16) . . . people care and are committed to the mission. (Interview 18) People are here because they are committed, not just the money. (Interview 22) We are committed even though we are not appreciated. (Interview 25) [Strength:] commitment and faithfulness to the [organization] and the community to help them grow. (Interview 26) We continue to be committed, dedicated, and dependable . . . (Interview 33)

Similarly, at the school, we find expressions for a hopeful future and expressions of commitment, loyalty, and dedication: Dedicated teachers and support staff. (Interview 50) Dedicated staff . . . Commitment of staff . . . (Interview 60) Teacher commitment. (Interview 61)

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

55

[Administrator] dedicated, works late. (Interview 70) Teacher dedication. (Interview 77) Teachers’ dedication . . . give their all—stay late hours. (Interview 78) Dedicated teachers committed to teaching children. (Interview 80) Teachers highly committed. (Interview 115)

Such positivity is juxtaposed, in both data sets, with unambiguously negative expressions. For example, employees at the human service organization make copious references to bad working conditions, both physically and psychologically, and are quite outspoken with harsh criticism of upper management’s business decisions. Numerous interviewees also expressed feeling oppressed, paralyzed, and downtrodden with their heads put “on a chopping block” (Interview 40) if they speak out. The phenomenon of the perception of “hit list” for those who speak out is addressed in greater detail in chapter 4. School interviewees likewise were quite outspoken about the ways in which they felt about such things as bad working conditions, lack of pay, and decision making of upper administration. In addition, some school interviewees also perceive the likelihood of negative repercussions for speaking out to those in authority. Again, this phenomenon is discussed in chapter 4. From a Eurocentric mindset, such strong expressions about the negative aspects of organizational life might appear to be inexplicable in light of cooccurring expressions of loyalty and positive outlook. However, when the value of positivism is seen in conjunction with expressiveness and emotional vitality in this way, such emotional expressions that appear contradictory to the Eurocentric eye are easily explained within a cultural fabric. Honesty in all relations is highly valued culturally, and maintaining a positive view toward the future is an important cultural coping mechanism for dealing with difficult situations. Furthermore, as explained by Hecht et al. (1993), recognition of the mutual coexistence of good and bad in life is one of the hallmarks of African-American culture. Thus, the juxtaposition of realism and positivity is not paradoxical (as a Eurocentric analysis might conclude), but culturally appropriate. Realism. This emotional openness in expressing negative feelings within the context of a positive outlook is related to the core symbol of realism. “African-American culture places a high value on ‘tellin’ it like it is’ ” (Hecht et al., 1993, p. 103). This value may be metaphysically grounded in a diunital perspective (Nichols, 1976, 1987; Rose, 1982/1983) that embraces a harmonious and holistic union of concepts viewed as oppositional by Eurocentric or Western cultures. In other words, positivity and realism are not contradictory. Rather, a frank and realistic appraisal of the bad is in itself

56

CHAPTER 2

part of the good; it is bad to ignore or conversationally suppress that which is bad. “African-Americans see both the good and bad in life and trust that, in the long run, good will triumph. This view requires a realism about the current state of affairs, a trust in fairness, and a positive outlook about the future” (Hecht et al., 1993, p. 104, citing Rose, 1982/1983). Trust and fairness are enormous issues in the organizations studied here; they manifest most saliently in the problematics of communication and interpersonal dynamics and of leadership/management. Lack of interpersonal trust on executive team. (Interview 1) [Recommendation:] Recognition that employees are valued, build trust with employees with a sense of caring; at least listening to them. (Interview 4) Distrust with manager—uncommitted to staff performance. (Interview 10) . . . senior management don’t seem to trust managers to do a good job— don’t trust leadership . . . (Interview 13) Employees are very distrustful of managers because of history of showing favoritism and ignoring others who were similarly talented. . . . People need to see exemplary management to begin to build trust. (Interview 16) Overall people are not treated fairly . . . (Interview 22) All [employees] must be treated fairly and paid equitably (for competence and years of experience), especially those who are faithful in tenure. . . . [Need] fair distribution of labor (don’t give one group difficult/critical cases and another not so difficult cases). (Interview 32)

Assertiveness. The remaining core cultural symbol identified by Hecht et al. (1993) is that of assertiveness. Assertiveness in African-American behavior is described in a variety of ways, including intense, outspoken, confrontational, challenging, forward, aggressive, forceful, and determined. Jenkins (1982) linked assertiveness to racism and oppression; African Americans have historically had to fight for resources withheld by discriminatory policy and practice. Speaking up for oneself has been imperative for survival and has become a strong core symbol in part through socialization of African-American children in a racist society. The value of assertiveness, particularly in one’s speech, is seen in our data in several places. [Employees in this department] need to be assertive, skillful in certain areas, solve problems in crisis . . . knowledgeable . . . if they don’t know they are not afraid to ask. (Interview 18) Supervisor takes advantage of those who don’t speak up for self. (Interview 37)

Members of both organizations also repeatedly report a desire for individual recognition and acknowledgment of individual contributions. This can

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

57

also be viewed as assertiveness, in that they are attempting to assert their own unique value in the organizational system, reflecting the problematic of cultural identity and human development. In addition, members of both organizations are clearly resentful in their perception of swift repercussions for “speaking out” in an open and honest way with their superiors, as mentioned earlier and discussed in detail in chapter 4. This resentment may very well arise from the frustration of having one’s natural assertiveness suppressed organizationally. African-American Communication and Speech Styles Because the vast majority of research on African-American communication focuses on language use (verbal and nonverbal stylistic devices, dialect, and oral traditions), it seems prudent to take a moment here to provide a brief review of this literature. Although some characteristics that have been identified are observed in other cultures, there appear to be a number of recurring characteristics applicable to African-American communication that highlight the style and delivery of speech. “The African worldview emphasized religion as a way of life, a strong kinship system, a symbolic concept of time and the magic power of the word. These concepts evolved into the deep structure or the underlying meanings in the language as it is used today by Africans across the diaspora” (Dandy, 1991, p. 26). Harrison (1972), for example, reviews several elements such as Black English (Ebonics), narrative style, call-response, and rhythm. Another compelling reason to take time for this brief review is that almost all the characteristics of AfricanAmerican language use discussed here were observed in the communication styles of our interviewees. Thus, whereas all aspects of the following brief review do not specifically explain patterns in the data or our emergent model, they do provide a cultural frame for understanding and interpreting our data. Nommo and Language Use. To holistically examine the stylistic features of African-American communication, one must first consider the significance and development of African-American language use in general. Functionally, “language is the primary means by which the individual is introduced to and gains access to, the classification and thought systems of society. . . . Language imposes order and control over the individual’s experience with and conception of reality” (Wright & Hailu, 1988/1989, p. 176). African-American language use developed based on needs, strengths, and liabilities of Black persons (Haskins & Butts, 1973)—partially in response to oppression, racism, and slavery. Other factors significant to its development are African language origins, stereotypes, skin-color perception, selfesteem, and verbal behavior during infancy and childhood (Haskins &

58

CHAPTER 2

Butts, 1973). Language is, of course, directly related to culture and “is always an essential and framing contributor to every social situation” (Wright & Hailu, 1988/1989, p. 184). As for any other cultural group, AfricanAmerican language use is embedded in culture and is constantly changing; it “never stays in one place long enough for scientific scrutiny; it constantly finds its way into a mode which is only revealed through the magic of the word” (Harrison, 1972, p. 55). Further, African-American language use connects to forces and spirituality behind words. One of the most significant markers of African-American culture and language use is the concept of Nommo, which is described as “the generating and sustaining power of the spoken word” (Smith, 1972, p. 295) or the lifegiving power of the word. “Nommo” is the generative power of the word to bring things, ideas, and concepts into existence. Whereas the concept of Nommo is often referred to as power in the spoken word, its meaning reaches far beyond the spoken word into a realm of spirituality. Although Nommo is normally associated with verbal acts, it is common to AfricanAmerican communication and communication traditions in Africa generally. Nommo is an African-based language philosophy representing the spirituality of communication and not just the communicative act itself: “Nommo refers to the power of the word, that force which manipulates all forms of raw life and conjures images that represent biological place in time and space and spiritual existence as well” (Harrison, 1972, p. xiv). Nommo is different from other aspects of African-American communication in that it is a powerful socializing force that encompasses and unifies aspects of language. Nommo is something that is never absent, yet it is not a phenomenon that can be measured or counted. “So strong is the African belief in the power and absolute necessity of Nommo that all craftsmanship must be accompanied by speech” (Smitherman, 1986, p. 78). This force and performance of force is exhibited in African-American communication in the narration of myths, folk stories, sermons, joke-telling, barbershop and beauty salon talk, street corners, proverbs and folk sayings, casual rap scenes, testifying, toasting, and other verbal arts (Smitherman, 1986). The spirituality of Nommo bears much significance on African-American culture: “Spiritual life is an inextricable element of Black community life. And Nommo is the great organizer. Society is the way Nommo exerts herself” (Harrison, 1972, p. 199). In discussing Nommo, Harrison (1972) shows its encompassing spiritual effect on aspects of communication:

Polyrhythmic sounds, call and response, hand-clapping, chorus, testifying, bearing witness, and vocal drum emissions are all means employed by black people on the block to conjure up the effective Nommo that intensifies communication: meaning is established when the verbal mode is harmonized. (p. 55)

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

59

Examples of creative oral expressions, or orature, include “narratives, dances, myths, ritual, songs, proverbs and masquerades, black preaching, and the dozens” (Shaw, 1995, p. 118). A unique communication system, it is the structural fusion of the aspects of orature that influence the kind of information developed (Shaw, 1995). Smith (1972) reviews the development of characteristics of Black oratory and communication. Black oratory is intricately woven with the study of Black history. “Having to defend his humanity, to agitate for minimal rights, and to soothe the raw emotions of his mistreated brethren, the black speaker was often forced to develop and articulate effective speech behavior on the platform” (Smith, 1972, p. 295). In short, Nommo continues to manifest itself in the Black community, and Black oratory has historically been collective in the same sense that most artistic productions are meant to be shared with entire audiences (Smith, 1972). Nommo, the primary value of the spoken word, is prevalent throughout both our data sets. Organizational members make copious specific references to communication, especially to talk. It is particularly important to employees to be spoken to by those holding powerful positions. Numerous employees complained about not being spoken to by executives when they pass by casually (in hallways, etc.). This habit of communicatively ignoring one’s employees clearly addresses deep issues of respect and dignity, but what is important to us at the moment is that the employees specifically describe this phenomenon through references to talk. Specific references to speech and to talk are pervasive in data from the human service organization: Leadership encourages employees to speak out and voice their opinion. . . . . Manager gets people to talk and deal with issues . . . Member of executive level should speak to employees in the hall. (Interview 6) Some make staff feel worthless and speak with disrespect. (Interview 9) Neither governing board nor senior management has taken the time to come out and give motivational talks to the employees. (Interview 15) When problems arise, [employees] should talk directly to supervisor in charge . . . (Interview 18) Executives come up on the floor and don’t speak—say hello, etc. (Interview 33) [There are] noticeable changes [for the worse], but no one speaks out. (Interview 35) Supervisor takes advantage of those who don’t speak up for self. (Interview 37)

Likewise, at the school, the value of talk is apparent. Organizational members discuss the importance of teachers and the school administrators “talking” to children’s parents (Interviews 118 and 120). They see it as prob-

60

CHAPTER 2

lematic when people do not speak (e.g., Interview 108). They praise one administrator for the way that he “stop(s) and has conversation with teachers” (Interview 75). In both organizations, references to communication, particularly interpersonal communication, are abundant. Seemingly all aspects of organizing are linked to communication, particularly to talk. Organizational members want those in power to talk to them; they want their leaders to talk about things. The power of the word is apparent through constant commentary about talk and the need for open communication in both organizations. At the same time, people in both organizations overwhelmingly feel threatened about speaking out negatively (again highlighting talk as particularly salient). This is addressed in detail in chapter 4. Stylistic Patterns. Much research has highlighted certain stylistic devices that generally characterize African-American communication. Stylistic elements, particularly call–response, rappin’, and signifyin’ (defined later), are not prevalent in our data due to particular context of the research interview. However, we felt it necessary to discuss them here due to the great deal of research devoted to them in the literature and also to the richness they provide as a cultural framework. Any discussion of the literature on African-American language use would be incomplete otherwise. The first stylistic pattern that we address is rhythm. Fluctuations in pitch, stress, tone, rate, and tempo make up rhythm. Words pronounced in a particular way may indicate special meaning such as sarcasm or disbelief. Rhythm also includes rhyming, repetition of sounds, and fluency. With rhythm, semantic meaning is combined with lyrical balance, cadence, and melodious sounds (Smitherman, 1986). African-American speech has been described as having a musical quality; the voice is employed like a musical instrument with improvisations and riffs. Rhyme and cadence often couple to form a songlike pattern of speech; “rhyme remains a basic ingredient of poetry. Its widespread cultural use and approval in nonpoetic contexts is unique to Black speakers” (Smitherman, 1986, p. 145). Patterns of rhythm have often been recognized in Black rappers, poets, and especially in Black preachers/political leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Talk-singing is associated with feeling the spirit in the words. In Black preaching, the style is characterized by elongation articulation of single words, by heavy breathing, by lengthy pauses between words and phrases, and by constant interjections of the stammered key expressions “ha,” “aha,” and “uh-huh” (Smitherman, 1986, p. 139). Dorsey (2000) also documents culturally unique rhythmic expressions in the speech of AfricanAmerican women, most notably “giiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllllllllllllllll” (girl), “mmm-mmm,” and “Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm” (all pronounced with a variety of distinct and recognizable pitch and cadence patterns), all

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

61

of which are usually used to indicate solidarity and agreement with another African-American woman. She also documented African-American women’s use of distinct and recognizable hand, head, and eye movements in small group conversation with one another. Black preachers and orators often incorporate rhyme into their sermons in speeches. Malcolm X and Jesse Jackson are prime examples. Attorney Johnnie Cochran’s use of repetition and rhyme in particular pitch and cadence (“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit; if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”) is another well-known example. Jesse Jackson’s use of rhythm persuades and entertains audiences; his speeches embody aspects of rhythm such as rhyme, repetition, and musical quality. Wilson (1996) discusses Jackson’s 1988 Democratic National Convention address in terms of its rhetorical rhythm. Wilson considers Jackson’s use of melodic structure a rhetorical tool and argues that some laws of music can reinforce rhetorical logic. She analyzes the connection between the Black ministerial oratory and rhythmic patterns, noting that an apparent rhetorical skill of the trained minister is the use of ritualistic cadence in the sermon. Wilson argues that the sounds Jackson produces embody the persona of the Black preacher. She further comments on Jackson’s reliance on repetition. As with other aspects of African-American communication, rhythm can work in unity with other features. For example, Harrison (1972) explains how repetition and narratives cooperate: Repetition is a device of most Black narratives—which is used to reinforce dramatic pulse of a phrase or statement. Images sustain unity through the progression of repeated statements. Repetition tends to revitalize rhythms, invigorating, and adding to the intensity of the force of words. (p. 76)

Smitherman (1986) recognizes the role of repetition as well; “believing that meaningful sounds can move people, the Black speaker capitalizes on effective uses of repetition” (pp. 142–143, emphasis added). In short, “vocal expression reigns supreme . . . The sounds of words can often assume as much importance as presentation of arguments in this situation” (Smith, 1972, pp. 296–297, emphasis added). The second stylistic device of African-American speech we discuss here is stylin’. Stylin’ entails the manipulation of language or mannerisms to influence the effect the message. It involves the “way in which verbal and nonverbal cues are demonstrated to achieve a desired effect” (Jackson, 1995, p. 151). It includes usage of rich, descriptive, allegorical phrases. Jackson (1995) views stylin’ as a key component to rhetorical structure. Crafty usage of words and body language denotes stylin’ as does allegorical and descriptive phrases. Word power (Nommo) is manifested in stylin’ (Greaves, 1992). In an investigation of selected calypsos of political commentary, Greaves

62

CHAPTER 2

(1992) illustrated stylin’—the conscious manipulation of words to create negative and vivid images. “Stylin’ out” refers to performing certain acts and saying certain things with flourish and finesse (Holt, 1972). Stylin’ functions to interactively involve the audience in the message, to make words reality, and to engage in expressive communication. The third feature of African-American communication is narration or storytelling. Storytelling relates to the African past where a griot (a storyteller/ musician in western Africa who perpetuates the oral tradition and history of a village or family) or revered elder was responsible for maintaining tribal history. Narrative style is related to lyrical code, which concerns itself with “inventiveness and creativity expressed through language” (Jackson, 1995, p. 151). Because it is a cultural creation and engages a particular group of values for the enhancement of discourse, narrative style is important. Storytelling acts as a measure to insure information is passed through generations. The use of narrative (storytelling) is an important contributor to African-American folklore. The folklore provides a “framework for insight into the history and worldview of African Americans” (Ogunleye, 1997, p. 435). Storytelling is an element of a life force brought to America from Africa. Traditionally, Africans had used language symbolically to express deeper meaning; the language in narratives was also used to conceal important messages. Asante (1989) argues that no other art form “reflects (the) tremendous impact of (the African) presence in America more powerfully or eloquently than does folk poetry in the storytelling tradition” (p. 491). Folklore is powerful; its strength lies in its “power to communicate the social and cultural identities of the eras” (p. 436). The oral tradition of African-American culture includes several types of narrative forms. The stories are relevant to the culture and experiences of Black America. Smith (1972) lists the types of folktales commonly told: general human interest stories, ghost stories, event-explaining stories, underdogs overcoming (such as Brer Rabbit stories where the rabbit out-foxes the fox). The folk narrative forms usually contained overriding themes of strength, endurance, power, and coping ability of Black people. Stories can be told in prose form, conversational tone, or poetic form. Unlike the Western fairy tale, it is not designed to transport our sensibilities beyond the realities of natural existence. Rather, the story teaches how to deal with existing forces by creating a mode which demonstrates man’s [sic] potency in relationship to what might have been considered overwhelming odds. (Harrison, 1972, p. 39)

Many features of African-American communication overlap. For example narratives often embody repetition for emphasis or affirmation. “The re-

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

63

peated phrase may issue from word or gestures; in either case, the incremental effect introduces new information while advancing the dramatic imagery” (Harrison, 1972, p. 46). Stylistic choices are embedded in context. The placement of particular words or sounds creates meaning more so than the articulation of those words.

Black narrative style . . . owns a syntax which is informed by the scene or atmosphere. Style does not suggest any fixed limits on how a narrative or song must be delivered. It is sui generis to the performer. The speaker exploits the context he is in to achieve the greatest amount of immediacy and variation on old themes. (Harrison, 1972, pp. 46–47)

Oral storytelling is a significant aspect of African tradition. Harrison (1972) emphasizes the greater communicative appeal narration has over literature in the Black community. The vitality of the tale is drawn from the context in which it is told; the listener’s response is committed to the concreteness of the oral mode of delivery. The purpose of storytelling in the Black community is to import wisdom and appeal to common sense as it functions for the community in the development of moral understanding. Smitherman (1986) also explains how narrative speech is characteristic of Black communication generally. African-American speakers often express themselves about everyday occurrences through storytelling; whether the subject is work, love, sorrow, or other topics, storytelling becomes a method of explaining a view or making a point. Storytelling is an African-American rhetorical strategy to explain, persuade, win over, and influence people. Thus, “narrative speech is not only ritualized storytelling, but also is a characteristic register of Black communication generally” (Smith, 1972, p. 47). The data from the interview notes documents the telling of stories as a major technique by which our respondents made their points. Our data is replete with stories that interviewees told to contextualize their commentary. They told of events that had happened to them, to others, and in the organization’s history. The notions of storytelling as both a form of African-American expression and as a form of communication that structures organizations (Browning, 1992; see chap. 1) are upheld by our data. Another characteristic of African-American communication is call–response, particularly in the context of the Black Church. It involves participation from both the audience and the speaker. Call–response is “the ritualistic response from the audience, a feature of storytelling mode common to both contemporary and traditional Black communities” (Harrison, 1972, p. 47). African-Americans engage in call–response, in various communication situations, but normally in the religious ceremonial setting.

64

CHAPTER 2

This custom from their African heritage provides to the audience and opportunity to participate and to feed back favorably to the message of the sermon. . . . It is not uncommon for Black preachers to pause for breath and receive responses from their congregations. Of course, some ministers deliberately pause after an important word or phrase, thereby calling for the response. . . . Usually the response is the repetition of the exact word or phrase, or it may be an affirmatory statement such as “Oh yes,” “Praise God,” “Thank you Jesus,” or “Have mercy.” (Niles, 1995, p. 84)

With call–response, sometimes the call is very specific (e.g., can I hear you say “Amen?”); other times it may not be explicitly stated. On some occasions, poignant phrases may be repeated for emphasis; often, the speaker will repeat a phrase followed by a pause for audience response (Phillips, 1983). Call–response relates to Nommo and the spirituality of communication among African Americans. Call–response “brings spiritual solidity and power to the images created in language” (Harrison, 1972, p. 54). Call–response organizes Black American culture generally, and enables traditional Black people to realize a harmonious and balanced state of being that is fundamental to the African worldview. Call–response is also prevalent in African music as free and spontaneous expression (Dandy, 1991). Yet another documented characteristic of African-American speech is rappin’. The use of this term as a descriptor of African-American language use predates its popular use as the name for a form of urban AfricanAmerican-developed music. Even from our brief review here, it is easy to see how rap as a speech style with its roots in African oral storytelling evolved into its expression as rap music. Stephens (1998) provides a compelling analysis of rap music as a contemporary form of storytelling with roots in African culture, casting the rapper as narrative performer, contemporary trickster, and griot. A continuation of the African oral tradition, rap music has roots that stretch far back to West and Central African griots and praise singers (Toop, 1991). As contemporary African griots, and preservers of African-American culture and social history, rappers perform the duties of local and national historians, reporters, advisers, and disseminators of important cultural information about real-life daily experiences. As a source of inspiration, the stories they share are not only told to inform, educate, and entertain, but also to influence, persuade, motivate, and liberate. Rappers seek to provoke and arouse the emotions and imaginations of their listeners and critics. Rap narratives, in effect, are created to communicate the hopes, dreams, values, fantasies, fears, frustrations, and sufferings of audiences, crossing race, class and gender lines. Like traditional African epic narratives, rap is used to explain African American interpretations of . . . the world. . . . (p. 31)

COMMUNICATION AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS

65

Scholars of African-American speech originally used the term rappin’ to denote fluency and the liveliness in speech, characterized by a great degree of personal style (Kochman, 1972). Rappers possess skills in reading their audience and their situation; wording often depends on the context and the receivers (Smitherman, 1986). Smaller units of rappin’, such as exaggerated language, mimicry, proverbial statements, punning, improvisation, imagemaking, braggadocio, and indirection (Smitherman, 1986) stem from the oral tradition discussed earlier and thus serve to preserve AfricanAmerican heritage and reflect the collective spirit of the culture through song, story, folk sayings, and verbal interplay. Each of these smaller units can also be seen in rap music (Stephens, 1998). As a form of conversational style, rappin’ embodies several characteristics of African discourse strategy (Smitherman, 1986). Another characteristic of African-American communication style is signifyin’. Signifyin’ is a tactic employed in verbal dueling. This language behavior attempts to imply, goad, beg, boast, and stir up excitement. It is “the verbal art of insult in which the speaker humorously puts down, talks about, needles . . . the listener” (Smitherman, 1986, p. 118). It is a culturally approved method of talking about someone in a manner not meant to be taken seriously. Signifyin’ take several forms, from witty one-liners to cohesive discourse. It embodies similar characteristics to rappin’, such as indirection, circumlocution, humor, irony, rhythm, and punning (Smitherman, 1986). Indirect intent and metaphorical reference are significant rhetorical elements of signifyin’ (Gates, 1988). Indirection is a formal device that appears purely stylistic; signifyin’s “art characteristics remain in the forefront. Signifyin’, in other words, turns upon the foreground of the signifier” (Gates, 1988, p. 85). The actual meaning in a phrase or sentence differs from its apparent importance, and such indirection involves sophisticated strategy. Moreover, signifyin’ argues or persuades indirectly and implicates through language. With signifyin’, the verbal strategy is “designed to sustain anger and hostility at the verbal level, thus avoiding (physical) violence” (Dandy, 1991, p. 81). In a work discussing narrative folklore, Abrahams (1970) describes signifyin’ as a trickster’s ability to needle and lie. Signifyin’ refers to talking with great innuendo and cajoling. Signifyin’ can involve making fun of a person or situation. Signifyin’ allows the speaker to present a tough and fearless image through highly stylized verbal and nonverbal strategies to impress, persuade, or control the audience while avoiding providing proof of this toughness or fearlessness. Vernacular names of these language features vary according to location and time; they are commonly called (in addition to rappin’ and signifyin’) basin’, buggin’, bustin’, checkin’, crackin’, dissin’, jonin’, markin’, soundin’, woofin’, and playing the dozens (Dandy, 1991).

66

CHAPTER 2

CONCLUSION The emergent model designed from our data (see Fig. 2.1) and contextualized by our review of literature on African-American communication and culture is but a taste of the richness in our data. The model (Fig. 2.1) is merely descriptive. A deeper understanding of the structural processes underlying these communicative descriptions can be obtained by returning to the baseline model (Fig. 1.1) to examine the interpenetration of cultural structures. Chapter 3 begins to present this part of our analysis by exploring the rules and resources of African-American culture revealed in our data.

C H A P T E R

3 African-American Rules and Resources

COMPARISON TO THE BASELINE MODEL At this juncture, we need to investigate communication difficulties arising from the interpenetration of contradicting structures. Thus, we now turn back to the baseline model (Fig. 1.1) in chapter 1 that depicts the interpenetration of organizational structure with ethnic/racial/societal cultural structure in a culturally monolithic organizational system. That baseline model of the simple compatible relationship between multiple structures shows a generally functional organizational system that reproduces the initiating structures. As described in chapter 1, the predominantly EuropeanAmerican U.S. corporate organization functions from a smooth and natural blend of interpenetrating structures (organizational design/form and ethnic/racial cultural structures). We now turn to that baseline for comparison to a very different kind of organizational system—the organization with a European-based-cultural design/form peopled by an organizational membership whose ethnic/racial culture is not European-based. The diagram in Fig. 3.1 depicts a black triangular shape representing one of the interpenetrating structures: the traditional U.S. corporate-type organizational structure whose origin is embedded in European thought, as described in chapter 1. The organizations under study in this research are particularly arranged in highly formalized, vertically hierarchical, linear fashion, as described earlier. This black triangle depicting the rules and resources embedded in the organizational structure interacts with the white circle representing the second interpenetrating structure: the AfricanAmerican human cultural social structure with orientations toward relation67

68

CHAPTER 3

FIG. 3.1. The interpenetration of contradictory structures.

ship and task highlighted at its center as the central entree to the invocation of structure into system. Again, relationship is listed first to highlight the primacy of relationship in African-American cultural value systems. The model depicted in Fig. 3.1 is explicated in two chapters. The remainder of this chapter focuses on rules and resources of African-American culture (the white circle), discovered in our data. Chapter 4 focuses on the ways in which these two sets of rules and resources interpenetrate in contradictory ways to create a phenomenon we call “the divergent organization” (the circle/triangle that results). The key point to the process depicted in Fig. 3.1 is that members of African-based cultures draw their rules and resources for social practice and appropriate social/organizational behavior in part from an African-based cultural structure that is incongruent with the European-based cultural structure on which the organizational form and design are based. This is not to say that there exists homogeneity in relationship/task (or other) orientations among all African Americans or those who are members of these organizations. In addition, African-American culture is a blend of African and European (among other) influences, and certain features of the culture might be described as triangular in the same way that the cultural structures of European-based organizational forms are described as triangular. Our purpose in depicting African-American culture with a circle is to emphasize the communal and collectivist ethos of African-American culture, as well as to highlight contradictions in its interpenetration with the cultural structures of European-based organizational forms. As is illustrated here, there are distinct identifiable features of African-American culture that emerge from our data and that interpenetrate in contradictory ways with the cultural structure of European-based organizational form. AfricanAmerican members of predominantly African-American organizations can be expected to frequently draw on their common African-American cultural structures as they interact daily in a culturally and ethnically homogenous social environment. As is shown by our data, many aspects of African-

69

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES TABLE 3.1 Nichols’ (1976, 1987) Philosophical Aspects of Cultural Difference Cultural Dimension Axiology

Epistemology

Logic Process

African/African-American

European/European-American

Member–Member The highest value lies in the interpersonal relationships between persons. Affective One knows through symbolic imagery and rhythm. Diunital The union of opposites Ntuology All sets are interrelated through human and spiritual networks.

Member–Object The highest value lies in the object or the acquisition of the object. Cognitive One knows through counting and measuring. Dichotomy Either/or Technology All sets are repeatable and reproducible.

American cultural structure interpenetrate with European-based cultural structures in contradictory ways. Furthermore, as discussed in chapter 1, because of the homogeneity, the invoking of cultural structure into social practice is beneath the level of awareness. Although it cannot be said that cultural members will draw on the same rules and resources or make the same choices of practices based on them, we do maintain, as argued in chapter 1, that there exist common cultural structures that members draw upon (Giddens, 1984). For example, Nichols (1976, 1987) discusses differences in the philosophies of several cultures on four cultural dimensions: Axiology, Epistemology, Logic, and Process. Because the philosophies of interest here are European and African, only these two are presented. The cultural differences are summarized in Table 3.1. It is important to note here that unlike Nichols we conceptualize such comparisons as existing conceptually on a set of continua, rather than in a set of mutually exclusive dichotomies. Rules and Resources The rules and resources of the European-based organizational structure are discussed in chapter 1 (in Table 1.1 and surrounding text). The rules and resources of African-American organizational cultural structure include relational orientation, spirituality, commitment to community, shared responsibility, primacy of unity, value of autonomy, continuous logic, humanism, mission/purpose/excellence, value of age, collectivism, interdependence, common good, value of the spoken word, communalism, polysynchronic time orientation, intersubjectivity, wholism, circularity, and inductivism. These are highlights of African-American organizational culture that are most

70

CHAPTER 3

salient for this analysis; this list is derived from and remains grounded in our data. These elements of African-American culture can be validated by a variety of sources on philosophical cultural values (Asante, 1987, 1988; Nichols, 1976, 1987; Schiele, 1990; Warfield-Coppock, 1995), and comparisons of African American communication to European-American communication (Daniel & Smitherman, 1976; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1987; Hecht et al., 1993; Hecht & Ribeau, 1984; Hecht et al., 1989; Jenkins, 1982; Kochman, 1981; LaFrance & Mayo, 1976; Martin, Hecht, & Larkey, 1994; Nichols, 1976, 1987; Orbe, 1995, 1998a, 1998b; Rose, 1982/1983; White & Parham, 1990), research on African-Americans in organizations (Alderfer, 1990; Asante & Davis, 1989; Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991; Cox & Nkomo, 1986; Foeman & Pressley, 1987; Jones, 1973, 1986; Kossek & Zonia, 1994; Kraiger & Ford, 1985; Nkomo, 1992; Nkomo & Cox, 1989; Thomas, 1989, 1990, 1993; Wharton, 1992). The foregoing list is by no means an exhaustive treatment of cultural rules and resources embedded in African-American cultural structures; we have chosen a core set of central organizational cultural features that are particularly salient to the organizational members in our data set. Table 3.2 includes a description of the ways in which rules and resources are appropriated and invoked as social practice. Like those in Table 1.1, some social practices listed are common behavioral norms, others are commonly uttered aphorisms or maxims that summarize core cultural values. Given that these rules and resources TABLE 3.2 Examples of the Appropriation of Rules and Resources From African-American Human System Into Social Practice Rule/Resource Relational Orientation Spirituality Commitment to Community Shared Responsibility Primacy of Unity Value of Experience Continuous Logic Humanism Mission/Purpose/Excellence Value of Age Collectivism Interdependence Common Good Value of the Spoken Word Communalism Polysynchronic Time Orientation Intersubjectivity Holism Circularity Inductivism

Social Practice Relationship focused management Sense of serving higher purpose Felt need to serve the community Group tasks, cohesive teamwork Group effort, commitment to common goals Deference to tenure/years of service; loyalty Continuous or cyclic reasoning Necessity of being treated respectfully Work ethic of quality and purpose Deference to elders; paying one’s dues Group celebrations, Team awards Interconnectedness and mutual need Rewarding unselfish efforts The importance of giving your word Personal contact; office parties/meetings “In time” vs. “On time” Group decision-making Communication totality, completeness Nonlinear interpretation/understanding “The big picture”

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

71

are mutually influential, the social practices listed may fit numerous structural components. Tables 1.1 and 3.2 have been organized so that the cultural features correspond respectively and thus can be easily compared. The rules and resources of European-American organizational culture listed in Table 1.1 are task orientation, the value of materialism, economic motivation, the primacy of control, the primacy of hierarchy, the value of authority, dichotomous logic, objectification, the value of quantitatively measurable productivity, the value of youth, individualism, self-reliance, competition, the value of the written word, efficient information gathering and dissemination, monosynchronic time orientation, objectivity, Cartesian dualism, linearity, and reductionism. In comparing the two tables, each cultural feature should be considered continual, such that it cannot be said, for example, that we have claimed that European-American culture “is materialistic,” whereas African-American culture “is spiritual.” Rather, we conceptualize culture as a repository of rules and resources commonly drawn upon by cultural members. To expand our example, one such set of rules/resources would be said to near the materialistic end of the material–spiritual continuum in EuropeanAmerican culture, whereas it exists near the spiritual end of the materialspiritual continuum in African-American culture. It is in this differential placement on these continua that the two cultural structures can be seen as contradictory. It must be noted again that African-American culture, although African-based, is not fully African. There are significant European (as well as other) cultural influences. As such, although African Americans as a cultural group can be said to draw from a repository of rules and resources that exists at the African-American poles of our continua, individuals in that group can be expected to vary in the extent to which they also sometimes draw upon the rules and resources at the European-American poles of the continua. When they invoke rules/resources at the AfricanAmerican end of the continua (which our respondents can be expected to do frequently due to the cultural homogeneity in the social environment of the predominantly African-American organization), they are at great risk of creating contradictory interpenetrations between the structures of the ethnic culture and the organizational form. Together, then, Tables 3.2 and 1.1 can be seen to represent 20 continua: relational orientation——task orientation spirituality——materialism community——economic shared responsibility——control unity——hierarchy experience——authority continuous——dichotomous

72

CHAPTER 3

humanism——objectification mission——productivity age——youth collectivism——individualism interdependence——self-reliance common good——competition spoken——written communal——efficiency polysynchronic——monosynchronic intersubjective——objective holism——dualism circularity——linearity inductivist——reductionist. Our conception of cultural features as continua requires a more holistic understanding of contradiction than afforded by a simplistic conceptualization of contradiction as opposition. Rather, contradiction occurs when social practices routinely or commonly invoked pull toward one end of a cultural continuum by producing a particular structure that exists at that end, whereas the cultural structure of the organizational form exists at the other end of the continuum, and organizational members who invoke rules and resources from the cultural structure of the organizational form (which may well be their own natural tendency) are pulling toward that end of the continuum. Contradiction, therefore is not conceptualized as two forces butting up against each other, but rather as two forces pulling away from each other, dividing the organizational entity against itself when tension is created by this pulling in different directions. In this way, contradiction is not seen as opposition, but rather as divergence. Theoretically, our aim is to work toward a humanistic model that accomplishes the “bending” of these continua into a circular, rather than bipolar, shape. By first defining culture as rules and resources rather than demographics, and then defining contradictions between structures as divergence, we seek in the latter part of this volume to achieve a model by which such culturally diverse organizations can function harmoniously. In at least one cultural dimension, we see this harmonious balance in our data. For numerous members of both organizations, there is no divergence between relational orientation and task orientation. Rather, both relationships and task are placed as primary and mutually defining; personal relationships are the mode by which tasks are accomplished, and task accomplishment is the mode by which relationships are built. In chapter 2, several examples from both data sets show this harmonious blend of relational and task orientations, where orientations toward relationships and task exist symbiotically, rather than divergently.

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

73

We have, however, several other things to accomplish before we can turn to such theoretic development. First, in this chapter, we must document and illustrate the rules and resources listed in Table 3.2. In subsequent chapters we discuss, among other things, contradictions between the interpenetrating structures, other significant patterns of communication in the data, and theoretic, empirical, and historical literatures to provide insight to these patterns. Our most present task is to describe how each of these sets of rules and resources (Table 3.2) for African-American culture can be seen in our data sets. Following are examples of each from both data sets. Relational Orientation. A relational orientation is seen in the value of relationship focused management, as described in chapter 2. We see this cultural value strongly in our interviewees. In addition to the examples given in chapter 2, the human service organization employees repeatedly stated their desire for a relationally focused work style: [Recommendations:] Replace [executive named] with someone with a better vision, who is compassionate, caring, and action oriented; and unafraid of interacting with their own community. (Interview 22) Communal model has helped us maintain a cohesive unit (because we spend a lot of time away from home). (Interview 26) No longer [have] family environment (especially, Christmas and Thanksgiving); community spirit dissipated. (Interview 34)

Also, in addition to the examples given in chapter 2, the school employees show a relational focus: [Challenge:] the interpersonal relationships . . . (Interview 50) [Strength:] supportive administration and staff. (Interview 60) [Administrator is] people oriented. (Interview 75) [Administrator] has a good rapport with the staff, students, and parents. (Interview 89) [Administrator is] nice to us. (Interview 107)

Axiologically, African-based culture significantly underscores the value of interpersonal relationships. The maintenance and enhancement of harmonious interpersonal relationships is considered the most important cultural value. This focus fosters a human-centered perspective toward life rather than an object or material perspective, in which the value in maintaining and strengthening interpersonal bonds is as important as (and in

74

CHAPTER 3

some instances overrides) the concern for acquiring material objects and accumulating wealth (Schiele, 1991). Spirituality. Spirituality is an integral part of African-based cultures (Scheile, 1990; Warfield-Coppock, 1994, 1995). Rather than existing as opposites, the metaphysical assumption of the Afrocentric paradigm is that the spiritual and the material simultaneously comprise reality; this is the diunital logic emphasizing the union of opposites (Myers, 1998; Nichols, 1976, 1987), which we discuss in our last chapter. Spirituality may take the form of religion, moral code, or cosmological beliefs/assumptions. Anecdotally, we must note here that in communities of African Americans, it is an unremarkable and expected practice for a formal or informal invocation or blessing to be given at the commencement of social gatherings and any time food is to be consumed (e.g., a sandwich buffet at a business meeting). In predominantly European-American organizations, such spiritual or religious practice is usually reserved for large, formal gatherings (graduations, the U.S. presidential inauguration, etc.) and is not often seen in any private sector or corporate setting. In addition to the explicit saying of an invocation or prayer, spirituality is manifested more subtly in repeated references to a higher calling or purpose. In both of our data sets, references to God, the Bible, religion, and spirituality abound. Respondents at the human service organization stated, God has kept this [organization] open for a reason. . . . This [organization] needs divine intervention to bring it back to a caring place. (Interview 17) [The organization is] not performing in the way God is calling us to and [clients] suffer because of it. (Interview 22)

Another respondent at the human service organization cited the closing of the organization’s on-site meditation space as evidence of the organization “going down” (Interview 33). Other human service organization respondents referred to their reliance on the power of prayer (Interviews 17, 40, 44). At the school, one employee directly referred to spirituality: [Strength:] inner strength—spiritual. (Interview 88)

Others made more indirect references to spirituality, citing the importance of morality, of doing the “right thing” and teaching children to do so as well (Interviews 69, 78, 120). Commitment to Community. The value of “giving back” to one’s community is strong in African-American culture, particularly in cases where one has risen to a position of success (Bowman, 1991). Anecdotally, we

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

75

might note that cliches and political slogans (e.g., “reaching back,” “giving back,” “lifting as we climb”) embody this value. This value is most probably grounded in the Afrocentric theoretical concept of the extended self (Myers, 1998; Nobles, 1978, 1980; Zahan, 1979), or the concept that the self includes all ancestors, the unborn, nature, and the entire community (Myers, 1998). Commitment to community is seen strongly in the culture of our interviewees. Several examples from the human service organization data can be found in the description (chap. 2) of racial/ethnic identity within the Problematic of Cultural Identity and Human Development. In addition, the human service organization employees often revealed a commitment to community in their criticism of administrative actions. For example, a middle manager identified the following as a critical issue: Got rid of [category of employees] upon the recommendation of prior consultants who knew nothing of the community’s needs. (Interview 5)

Regular employees criticize management for not working with the community: [Executive manager] should approach community to explore resources and work with them toward that end. (Interview 22) There is a lot that administration can do to help the [organization] but won’t reach out to the community for help to not appear they are taking handouts. (Interview 47)

A member of the executive team specifically referenced psychological dependence on what he called “the dominant culture” (meaning Whites) as problematic because it detracted from a sense of value for and pride in the resources of the Black community: [Critical Issue:] Perception that dominant culture’s resources are needed to provide us with some credibility. We need a communal awareness with sense of pride to help us value our own system. (Interview 4)

Executive team members, middle managers, and regular employees all made comments that reveal their commitment to the Black community: [We] need a communal awareness with sense of pride to help us value our own system of care . . . need to do more to care, to love and to serve people who look like us (African-American). (Interview 4, executive team member) We have a responsibility to be competent, respectful, and accountable to the people of this community. (Interview 9, middle manager)

76

CHAPTER 3

[The organization] has lost touch with the community. Their reputation/image in the community is poor. . . . (Interview 15, middle manager) People stay because of their affiliation and commitment to a predominantly Black institution. (Interview 16, middle manager) [I] work and interact well with administrative support staff . . . particularly those . . . who communicate the mind of the community. (Interview 19, middle manager) [Strength:] working with and for your own people. [I] still take pride in working for a predominantly Black [organization] that is located in my community. (Interview 33, regular employee)

At the school, commitment to the community is expressed in three ways: references to the Black community generally, to the parents of schoolchildren, and to the community living in the immediate neighborhood (which is predominantly African-American and also low income). [Strength:] neighborhood that realizes that the only way for change is by way of education. (Interview 58) [Strength:] community involvement. (Interview 59) [Strength:] community involvement. (Interview 63) [Challenge:]. Involvement—parents are not available . . . [Recommendation:] the community become involved with school. We have a lot of outside involvement, but it would be nice to see people who live in the area and business owners become more involved with school. (Interview 66) [Strength:] know community. (Interview 67) [Recommendation:] support from churches and communities. (Interview 71) [Should] require parents to—make more parents attend the parent center. Find a way to increase attendance among parents (e.g., community service). (Interview 75) [Need to] make a more positive impact on the community. (Interview 77) [Strength:] community ties. (Interview 96) [We have] strong partnerships with churches/community. . . . [Need] community more involved to keep playground safe. (Interview 99) [Challenge:] community involvement. (Interview 101) Need partnerships with groups (i.e., churches, organizations to adopt a school to help the children). (Interview 105) [Administrator] really gets involved in the community . . . (Interview 106)

Shared Responsibility. Shared responsibility for tasks reflects the African-centered value of decentralized power and authority (Warfield-Coppock, 1994, 1995). It manifests in our data as a value the human service organiza-

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

77

tion employees hold for sharing the work in a cohesive team environment. For example, Encourage interdependence and mutual responsibility within every division to get the job done. (Interview 13) Good working team and interconnectedness of employees. (Interview 21) Try to work as a team and help each other out where necessary. . . . Everyone should be able to pull their own weight. (Interview 25) Staff is great. Most people don’t mind rolling up their sleeves, managers and others. (Interview 29) Personnel has positive attitude, especially manager who don’t mind rolling up her sleeves [examples of work manager does]. (Interview 31) No team effort in work area. (Interview 32) Team concept needs improvement in the [department]. A healthier group would produce more healthy communication and produce healthy results. (Interview 38) Work well as a team. (Interview 41) Function under very limited resources as a team. (Interview 42) [I] work in [department] and everyone there works as a team and has a positive attitude of their position and works to get reports out . . . regardless of short staff and level of work, get the work completed. . . . If everyone work as a team, the workflow will be better. We are like link in a chain and if one part don’t function, the rest don’t. (Interview 45) [We have] very strong teamwork and cohesiveness. (Interview 46)

At the school, the value of shared responsibility encompasses the school employees as well as students’ parents. Make everybody accountable for their responsibilities. (Interview 55) [Need to] try to make the parents more accountable. Have them make contact with the various teachers on a regular basis. (Interview 59) [Challenge:] working together as a team and including everyone. (Interview 73) Parents need to be more responsible for their children’s behavior. (Interview 74) Morning meeting—each teacher responsible for an activity—the teacher shares stuff. Work together closely with a team. (Interview 75) Staff really works together. (Interview 81) [Need to get] parents involved in the education process of the children. (Interview 85) All staff can help with discipline. (Interview 86) Need to make parents responsible. (Interview 115)

78

CHAPTER 3

Primacy of Unity. In African-American culture, the individual cannot be understood separate from other people because there is no perceptual separation of the individual from the group (Akbar, 1984a). Although the culture recognizes and values individual uniqueness, it conceives individual identity as collective. Organizationally, this translates into highly valued unity. For example, [Strength:] [This department] is a close-knit unit—we work as a team and in unity. (Interview 12)

In addition, the human service organization employees often complained about others’ unwillingness or inability to work toward what they saw as common goals. Some not willing to roll up their sleeves to help the [organization] thrive. (Interview 15) [Employees in department that does manual labor] have had a problem with “just cleaning up” but should also be conscious about good grooming and motivated to do a good job. . . . [Other department] employees tend to be disrespectful to one another and often manager has to discuss this issue with them. (Interview 16) Supervisor said to her employees that they are here to make her look good. I feel we should work for the common good of the entire [organization]. (Interview 40)

By the same token, the human service organization employees appreciate others who are unified in their commitment to common goals. [Strength:] People who are hard workers and want to see the [organization] survive. (Interview 16) [Strength:] Staff working together for better [client service]. (Interview 28) Manager shows interest, cares, and tries to get the proper tools to you to get the job done. (Interview 42)

At the school, consistent references to “togetherness” in working reveal the strong orientation to unity: Need more team spirit and less segregation. (Interview 48) Teachers work well together [at this grade level]. . . . [Recommendation:] working closer together with other teachers. (Interview 53) Teachers working together on same grade level for the good of teaching each student to perform their best. Try to work together on level. . . .

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

79

Come together daily, not scheduled. . . . People need to work together. (Interview 54) Staff works together/camaraderie. (Interview 56) [Strength:] the entire staff—we support each other. (Interview 69) Do a lot together—meetings . . . Everyone’s together . . . staff pulls together, lots support. Filters to children—they feel it. (Interview 72) [Need to] come together in forum—what can we do [to solve problems]? (Interview 92) [We] work together, grade teachers. (Interview 96) Coworkers pull together/find solution, without going out for outside help. (Interview 101) Staff works together to please [administrators] and students. (Interview 104) Staff works well together. (Interview 114) Teachers work together well and help each other out. (Interview 122)

Value of Experience. African-based cultures place great emphasis on the wisdom of experience (Scheile, 1990; Warfield-Coppock, 1994, 1995). In our data, great value is placed on long-term service, as evidenced earlier in commentary related to organizational commitment. In addition, the human service organization employees voiced words of appreciation for those with experience, complained about management’s lack of appreciation for employees’ experience, lamented the loss of experienced organizational members, and objected to inexperienced people being rewarded. Employees who have been here for years don’t receive regular merit increase for work. (Interview 11) Lack of respect for individual employees’ talents and abilities by [executive manager]. (Interview 20) All [employees] must be treated fairly and paid equitably (for competence and years of experience). . . . [Employees] must have hands-on experience. . . . (Interview 32) . . . people who have been working therefore over 18/20 years have walked out because of all the new changes. . . . (Interview 45) [Strength:] years of experience with combined team. (Interview 46) Whatever she [a particular manager] wants she gets, although she is inexperienced and has contributed to the big turnover in her divisions. (Interview 47)

At the school, employees likewise reveal both appreciation of and a need for those with experience and complained about those who lack experience.

80

CHAPTER 3

[Need] more qualified veteran teachers. [Need] coteaching—a veteran teacher and a new teacher for an entire year to adjust to the system which initially could be overwhelming. (Interview 61) [Challenge:] ignorance of people—lack of knowledge. . . . [Need] more support from veterans (teachers). (Interview 64) [Strength:] many years teaching. (Interview 71) Good resources of veteran teachers available. . . . Good combinations of new and veteran teachers. (Interview 75) [Need] veteran teachers. (Interview 86) [Challenges:] School needs to get teachers who they can keep. [We have a] large group of new teachers to this environment. They must learn the culture of the school. Let them become part, have them—the sky is the limit. Get them to care, dedicate, and stay. [Many] leave—opportunities outside, money, family, moving. If [there is] something they don’t like, [they] leave—you have to want to belong. Those might be few. Keeping new teachers. Get training for them. (Interview 91) [Strength:] experienced teaching staff, both academically and years of teaching. . . . [Challenge:] to get the young teachers to understand the culture of the school. (Interview 100) Good communication with old and new teachers so they can learn. (Interview 111) Old experience and new thought patterns enhance the school. (Interview 112) [Strength:] veteran teachers that give balance. (Interview 121)

Continuous Logic. Rather than a Eurocentric notion of dichotomy (either/or logic) our respondents reveal a more holistic and circular kind of reasoning that recognizes interconnectedness in all things and perceives of events in cycles. Nichols (1976, 1987) discusses the nature of logic in African-American culture as diunital (the union of opposites) as opposed to the dichotomous logic of European-American culture. He also notes that the African-American cultural view of process is that of Ntuology (the interrelation of all sets through human and spiritual networks) as compared to a European-American cultural view of process as Technology (the inherent reproduceability and repeatability all sets). This is consistent with the Afrocentric paradigm as described by Myers (1998). Epistemologically, the Afrocentric paradigm views the self (ontologically, the extended self) as the basis of all knowledge. The idea is that all knowing is indwelling and tacit, overthrowing the Western/European dichotomy separating mind and body, reason and experience, theory and practice, subject and object, knower and known (Myers, 1998). Our data show a continuous logic among our respondents—a recognition of interconnectedness and cyclic events. Interconnectedness and interde-

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

81

pendence, addressed later, are closely related. Several examples of interconnectedness can also be found in those discussions. Next are some examples in our human service organization data of continuous logic: Good working team and interconnectedness of employees. . . . Input not solicited to lend assistance to complex problems. Head don’t communicate with the foot. (Interview 21)

One middle manager went so far as to provide us with a list of what she called “cyclical problems.” These problems include outside services that become unavailable due to a credit hold resulting in work delays, overcrowded space that does not allow proper record keeping, lack of or negative administrative communication, lack of administrative support and disrespect from administration, and an inability to achieve merit increases. She concluded her assessment of these cyclical problems by saying, Administration only seems to act when things meet crisis proportions instead of managing and servicing continually. (Interview 14)

Another middle manager’s description of a recurring conflict between middle managers and executive managers reveals cyclical logic, as well: Managers are in the throes of day-to-day problems, yet input is not respected to provide the solution for the problem, but when the problem reaches crisis proportions managers are blamed. (Interview 15)

Executive managers’ descriptions of recurring difficulties also reveal cyclical logic: No repeat clientele because of systemic faults and failures. (Interview 4) Managers are divided, don’t communicate, caught in a cycle of undermining one another; very dysfunctional. (Interview 5)

In the interviews from the school, numerous references to the need for things to be ongoing and continuous reveal this kind of logic. For example, Ongoing and continuous service for emotional children. (Interview 56) [We] do a lot together—meetings. From other schools I know [I] keep abreast of what [is happening]—continuity. . . . (Interview 72) [Need] Ongoing training programs in order to keep abreast. (Interview 60) [Strength:] constant encouragement by teachers to attend programs. (Interview 114)

82

CHAPTER 3

Humanism. Related to the value of relationships in African-American culture discussed earlier (see also Schiele, 1990), a human-centered philosophy is perhaps one of the most powerful aspects of African-American culture running through our data. Our respondents despise being objectified or depersonalized. The data set is replete with complaints of being disrespected and unappreciated, demands to be treated with dignity, and calls to respect others. This is also discussed in chapter 2 as closely related to the African-American cultural value “uniqueness” identified by Hecht et al. (1993). Respect is missing. Need to do more to care, to love, and to serve people who look like us. (Interview 4) People are not respected or appreciated or treated as though they matter. . . . [Recommendation:] Respecting the dignity and integrity of every employee. (Interview 5) Improve managerial interaction and give respect to department managers at meetings—speaking to a person as an adult not a child; this will build morale and foster lasting relationships. (Interview 11) Turnover in [department named] was due to director making employees feel unworthy, who already do very menial tasks in the [organization] with no appreciation. (Interview 15) [Recommendation:] Senior management treat people with respect and dignity. (Interview 23) [Specific type staff] need to order [work] on time and stop labeling everything an emergency . . . Takes away from staff doing routine work. This shows disrespect for employees’ time and abilities. (Interview 45)

At the school, we see a very similar pattern. Interviewees express their need to feel appreciated, respected, and treated with dignity. Recognition is deeply desired, especially for dedication and commitment. Everyone needs to feel valued and really part of the team. (Interview 50) Disseminate the power—administration have hands into many things give opportunity, pass the power, let others make decisions. Give teachers more freedom, “let breathe without permission.” (Interview 56) [Need to be] less critical and more positive/everybody. (Interview 58) Would like to see all staff members of [school name] treated equally. (Interview 68) Not much appreciation/recognition for their [teachers] dedication. . . . [Need] some type of appreciation service for teachers. (Interview 78) Teachers don’t feel appreciated or respected. . . . (Interview 79)

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

83

Mission/Purpose/Excellence. Little has been written about particular culturally embedded styles of work ethic for African Americans. Some scholars (e.g., Rose, 1982/1983) have claimed that African-American children are socialized early on to achieve. Our evidence reveals a strong work ethic focused around a sense of mission, purpose, and excellence. Quality is emphasized rather than quantity, and a qualitative sense of progress (e.g., getting it done, moving forward) is emphasized rather than quantitatively measured outcomes. For example, If every manager resigned the [organization] would still run, employees are that committed to the mission. (Interview 6) [We are] blessed with a good core of people who care and who make a difference. (Interview 9) [People] often volunteer to come in on-off days and stay over to cover shifts until others are able to come in. (Interview 11) Many managers are hard-working, but they lack the resources and equipment to do an adequate job. (Interview 16) [Strength:] several good professional managers who are committed to the mission of the [organization]. . . . People are here because they are committed, not just for the money. (Interview 22) [We need to provide] the “Cadillac of . . . services” that we say we are promoting. (Interview 26) [Specific department’s employees] quit because they are unsettled and unclear about . . . standards. . . . (Interview 35) [Recommendation:] Improvement in work area to provide quality services and maintain accuracy. (Interview 43) Work in [department named] and everyone there works as a team and has a positive attitude of their position and work to get reports out. [Other department named] do a good job in getting the quantity of work out. Improvisation—regardless of short staff and level of work, get the work completed. (Interview 45) Do what we can to get along with each other and get the work done. (Interview 47)

In addition, several examples were offered earlier in our discussion of the Problematic of Identity and Human Development, specifically organizational identity. The human service organization employees seem to have a strong need for a sense of mission and purpose of their work. Likewise, at the school, the interviewees speak of the overarching importance of their educational and social missions. Their work ethic is one of quality and excellence toward that mission.

84

CHAPTER 3

[Strength:] commitment of staff to educate students. (Interview 58) [Recommendation:] teachers should have more appropriate facilities to suit the needs of the program. (Interview 59) [Strength:] the emphasis on high teaching standards. (Interview 63) [Strength: We have] more pressure. Always being observed. Model for other schools. (Interview 70) [Need] more programs for teacher training to better assist the children. (Interview 78) [Strength:] the faculty teamwork and willingness to work with the students to help them meet their goals. (Interview 90)

Value of Age. African-American culture imparts a strong value to age; deference to one’s elders is a cultural imperative. One’s ancestors are revered, and wisdom is to be found with age (Asante, 1987, 1988). Younger individuals are expected to “pay their dues” in a system to earn the respect that comes with age. We see this in our data from the human service organization, Long-tenured employees are dedicated. (Interview 5) [I am] protective of [employees] because many have hung in there for many years without reward. (Interview 9) Team effort by those who are committed and have been working here a long time—and they have not abandoned ship, they want to see [the organization] succeed. (Interview 11)

It is particularly apparent when individuals are complaining about a lack of respect and/or appreciation offered in deference to age. [Executive managers] do not recognize senior staff members. (Interview 32) Age discrimination is prevalent. . . . (Interview 33) . . . vacation days are not extended based on seniority . . . [Need to] show appreciation for those who have been faithful and given their time and ability to this place. (Interview 45)

At the human service organization, the value of age is also apparent when employees complain of higher salaries among the newer, younger employees than among the longer tenured, older employees; this is addressed in chapter 4. Finally, at the human service organization, the lack of retirement benefits is an enormous source of dissatisfaction related to the value of age. This is also addressed in chapter 4.

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

85

At the school, several interviewees commented on the strength of veteran teachers, the deference afforded to them, and the need for new teachers to learn from them. For example, [Strength:] older teachers keep rooms [assigned same classroom from year to year—interpreted here as a measure of deference]. (Interview 107) A lot of new teachers [learn] and gather from old teachers. (Interview 112) [Challenge:] younger teachers. Need more veterans. (Interview 86)

Collectivism. African-American culture is collectivistic (Hecht et al., 1993). Collectivism runs through the fabric of our respondents’ orientations toward work, each other, and their organizations. This principle of collectivism underlies several of the other rules and resources in this list: relational orientation, commitment to community, shared responsibility, unity, interdependence, common good, communalism, and intersubjectivity. Examples from the data provided in discussions of these values are all grounded in a philosophy of collectivism. Interdependence. The structure of reality in African-American culture is a perspective of interdependency. That is, all elements of the universe are viewed as interconnected (Baldwin & Hopkins, 1990), and all human beings are dependent upon one another. This is related to spirituality, in that a universal link must be present for elements to be considered interdependent (Akbar, 1984a; Mbiti, 1970). African-American men have been found to believe that social responsibility is central to communication. They often feel a responsibility to uplift others like themselves and to educate and warn younger African Americans, to make them aware of different experiences (Orbe, 1994). The cultural aphorism, “lifting as we climb,” succinctly summarizes this value of the necessity of helping one another. At the human service organization, interviewees describe the importance of interdependence, working well together, and helping one another: [Recommendation:] Encourage interdependence and mutual responsibility within every division to get the job done. (Interview 12) [Strength:] . . . interconnectedness of employees. (Interview 21) [Strength:] [We] help one another with the work load. (Interview 27) [Need] team effort, working together to improve. (Interview 28) [Recommendation:] working out with present staff how to work together in order that the current workload don’t fall on one or two people. (Interview 36) . . . it will take everyone to make this place work. . . . (Interview 40)

86

CHAPTER 3

[Need to] improve working relationships between departments . . . (Interview 43) . . . we are like link in a chain and if one part don’t function the rest don’t. (Interview 45)

Employees at the school also reveal a value of interdependence as they discuss the importance of working together and helping one another. [Recommendation:] working closer together with other teachers. (Interview 53) People need to work together. (Interview 55) Staff works together/camaraderie. (Interview 56) Staff do their jobs and work together. (Interview 57) Good support staff (educational aides—when teachers are out, [others] do more than they are paid for.) (Interview 75) [Need] more support from administration in handling negative behavior [of children]. (Interview 77) [Challenge:] teachers lack togetherness because they are too worried about doing their own plan. . . . They don’t have time to help each other. (Interview 79) Teachers need to share. (Interview 85) [We] want to work together. (Interview 88) [Need] more collaboration between resource personnel. (Interview 102)

Common Good. Philosophies of shared responsibility, unity, humanism, collectivism, and interdependence are bound up with interest in the common good, which is basic to African cultures (Akbar, 1984a; Scheile, 1990; Warfield-Coppock 1994, 1995). It can clearly be seen here how the rules and resources of the cultural structure interweave, supporting and maintaining one another. In our human service organization interviews, the commentary presented earlier for related rules/resources (shared responsibility, unity, humanism, collectivism, and interdependence) reflect an overarching motivation to provide for the common good. In addition, specific reference to “the common good” can be found. For example, [Specific type staff] attitude to take matters in their own hands, disrespects authority of department manager and makes it worse for the common good of the [organization]. (Interview 12) [In this department], we are concerned people; we have to be because of the [nature of our work] factor for the whole [organization]. (Interview 39) . . . I feel we should work for the common good of the entire [organization]. (Interview 40)

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

87

School employees emphasize the need for everyone to attend to the good of the children and their parents: [Strength:] persons [who are] willing to push aside differences (philosophical/academically) for the children. (Interview 58) Kids have a lot against them before getting inside. Come with less. Teachers teach values. (Interview 70) [Need] more opportunities to assess the needs of the students, there are so many with needs—the social worker and counselor are busy. (Interview 76) [Strength:] teachers’ dedication—sharing a lot on grade level and between grade levels. To give their all—stay late hours. Go into community (e.g., home visits). (Interview 78) “Success for all” the school is a model. We are reaching our target. Students are achieving their goals. (Interview 85) There is always something exciting going on at [school name] which will help both parents and students. Parents are free to visit anytime during school hours. Parents also volunteer to assist teachers during the day. (Interview 89)

Value of Spoken Word. In our literature review in chapter 2, a great deal of space is devoted to the concept of Nommo—the power of the spoken word—in African-American culture. African-American culture is deeply grounded in the oral tradition of African societies. The spoken word is highly culturally valued. Like the value of respect grounded in a philosophy of humanism, the value of talk is powerfully present in our data. Copious examples of the value of the spoken word were provided in chapter 2. Communalism. Intertwined with the high value placed on human relationships, community, unity, collectivism, interdependence, and the value of talk, African-American culture deeply values social interaction that promotes communalism (Hecht et al., 1993). Communalism is experienced in relationship to how work is done through personal contact (i.e., verbal exchanges, stopping by one another’s offices or workstations). Communal social interaction is not merely viewed as important to developing personal relationships but is at the center of African-American cultural epistemology. African-centered cultures place considerable emphasis on social and affective ways of obtaining knowledge (Akbar, 1984a; Asante, 1988; Schiele, 1994). Culturally, communalism is an important component of the way wealth is produced, owned, and distributed (Covin, 1990). At the human service organization, most members decry the loss of communalism, and emphasize the need for it.

88

CHAPTER 3

[Need] improvement in attitude of management—being able to interact with employees on all levels (sharing with the janitor to their peers). (Interview 21) Irrespective of stress, we find time to socialize outside after work. . . . As a small [organization, we need to] devise some way for employees to come together, to socialize and get to know one another. (Interview 27) No longer family environment (especially Christmas and Thanksgiving). Community spirit dissipated. (Interview 35) I like working here. The majority of the people you can get along with, irrespective of rumors floating around. . . . There is good potential in this [organization], but not being tapped. We were like family before, having picnics, etc. but no more. (Interview 40)

The importance of communalism to organizational function is also apparent at the school: [Strength: we] come together daily, not scheduled. (Interview 54) [Need] more activities—social. Want to develop [children’s] social skills, to help them communicate better. (Interview 69) [We] do a lot together—meetings. From other schools I know [I] keep abreast of what [is happening]—continuity. Everyone’s together. Notified by written or oral. Prefer both. Every Monday [morning meeting]. Good [way] to start week. Fifteen minutes. [Administrator] assigns teacher, does motivation. All neat—everyone unique—have offerings. Want to share. Relaxation. Mental exercises and bring kids. See the talent. Sense of caring and support. Family oriented. “It’s a nice building.” [When there are] illnesses [or] deaths, staff pulls together, lots support. Filters to children—they feel it. [School] as oasis in midst of [name of neighborhood]. Children want hugs. Home situation. Community pitches in. Everyone knows school; lots of organizations. Interactive. [Administrator] seeks help. Community gathering. Scouts, etc. (Interview 72) [Strength:] go to sixth-grade events—movies, pizza parties. (Interview 78) Staff works together to please [administrators] and students. (Interview 104)

Polysynchronic Time Orientation. Hall (1983) discusses different cultural approaches to time on a continuum from monosynchronic to polysynchronic. As noted in chapter 1, European-American culture is highly monosynchronic; time is treated as a material commodity. African-based notions of time, however, are highly polysynchronic. Time is not viewed as a material commodity that can be spent or saved, bought or lost. In polysynchronic cultures time does not “pass,” rather, human beings move through time, which is conceived of as fluid and cyclical. A sense of time is based on participation in and observation of nature’s rhythms and of community events. In the African-based concept of time, one is not “on time”

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

89

but “in time” (Smitherman, 1986). “Timeliness,” thus, has more to do with the rhythm of particular tasks, relationships, and groups than with the clock. In chapter 4, a great deal of attention is devoted to a discussion of timeliness; several examples from the data are given there. Intersubjectivity. Closely related to unity, interdependence, collectivism, and communalism discussed earlier, as well as holism and inductivism, discussed next, African-American culture places as primary a realism based on experiences and communicated through interaction and social relationships. Communication grounded in genuineness is highly valued (Hecht et al., 1993), “genuine” being defined by true to one’s self and self being defined by relationships. In such a cultural structure, reality can not be viewed as an externally validated (or even validatable) construct (Asante, 1987). Reality is subjective and often unobservable. Our shared reality is constructed in social interaction, and determinations of that which is right and true emerge from communion with others. Given the highly spiritual nature of African-based cultures, Truth is grounded in spiritual belief and unity. Hence, rather than a reliance on “objectivity,” African-American cultural members tend to rely on consensual models of intersubjectivity. At the human service organization, this is manifested most obviously in a preference for consensus models of decision making and rejections of nonparticipatory modes of decision making. Decisions are not made as a team because of unwillingness to be supportive of models presented for processing as a team. No discipline to seize the opportunity to be committed as a successful team. Premature decisions about key positions are made without verifying it with the individual in that position. (Interview 4) [Executive manager] don’t hold division meeting to have creative engagement with his people. (Interview 14) Manager has no authority to fix/solve problems; things are thrust upon them and they are expected to carry out with no question asked. Managers are in the throes of day-to-day problems, yet input is not respected to provide the solution for the problem, but when the problem reaches crisis proportions the managers are blamed. This leads to frustrations and conflict/tension in the division. (Interview 15) Employees are daily interrupted from routine project spontaneously and are given other directions without being asked in advance. (Interview 25) [Manager] doesn’t listen to us, communicates in a nonconcerned manner; gives her solution, but don’t let employees provide input to resolve [department] problems. (Interview 34) [Recommendation:] Need input from employees regarding efficiency. Employees know best how to get job done. Able to set own pace. Need more empowerment, structure, and consistency. (Interview 37)

90

CHAPTER 3

[Strength:] able to network and intermingle with other [organizations], exchanging ideas through various associations that meet monthly. (Interview 46)

School employees also prefer participatory decision making and eschew nonparticipatory models—even for minor decisions. They also show a preference for developing ideas communally: [Need] to include teachers when ordering supplies. . . . Let others make decisions . . . (Interview 65) [Strength] availability of [grade-level] teammates to bounce ideas off of them. Shoulder to lean on and cry on—open to new ideas. (Interview 66) [Need] to include the support staff in activities and make them more aware of programs that could alter the regular schedule . . . (Interview 73) [Need to] support [administrator] in decisions. We want her support [on] equipment, etc. in school. (Interview 88)

Holism. Grounded in a collectivistic and spiritual perspective, Africanbased cultures view human life holistically (Schiele, 1994). This is reflected in the Afrocentric concept of the extended self, mentioned before. Identifying self in this way reflects the idea of “holonomy, the whole being contained in each of its parts, which is so characteristic of nature” (Myers, 1992, p. 7). The holistic philosophy of African-based cultures is also very closely related to continuous logic, discussed before, and circularity and inductivism, discussed next. The ways in which our respondents for both the human service organization and the school approach each other relationally (discussed earlier) and the ways in which they treat their clients and students, respectively, reveals such thinking. For example, human service organization employees show an interest in the “whole” client, not just his or her needs that are directly served by the organization. [Manager] don’t understand concept of [specific profession]—caring and sustaining. Communicate only when something is amiss . . . or when there is a problem. (Interview 29) Confidentiality and privacy is compromised when [employees] . . . ask [clients] to answer sensitive questions in an open area with an audience. It affects the [client’s] dignity. (Interview 43) Need additional space for better sensitivity and rapport with the [clients]. (Interview 44)

Likewise, school employees show great concern for enriching and caring for the “whole” child—with educational concerns far broader than teaching basic skills:

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

[Strength:] Saturday academy—entails both social and educational. . . . Need more parental involvement. (Interview 48) [Challenge:] try to expose the students to better environment and make them interact with other students in different districts. (Interview 59) [Challenge:] Students’ living environment—their home lives. That is, students who come to school hungry, and are deprived of a warm and nurturing environment have difficulty adjusting. These students have difficulty learning. The home culture of the students—a lot of students don’t understand why they should be corrected when their behavior is inappropriate. Some students respond negatively, especially when they are corrected by male figures. (Interview 61) [Strength:] Tutorial programs after school. Organizations and activities for students . . . staff volunteer. Some paid. Stipend basketball teams. . . . Family parent center. Computers, Internet, books/resources, monthly parent meetings, workshops—training to help children, life skills in order to succeed. (Interview 71) [Challenge:] Environment/neighborhood (community outreach). Sirens during day [and] night. Stresses kids at times. Deal with stressed kids. Administration—inclusive. Kids don’t get to sleep [until 3 or 4 a.m.] or have bad night. Good kids, but where live—good/bad day go with flow. (Interview 72) [Strength:] Teachers really care for the students, expect them to do their best. . . . [Challenge:] Students’ backgrounds—some children come from disadvantaged homes. Sometimes these homes may not have proper nutrition (breakfast, dinner). [If they are] sick, parents have to work, don’t have place to leave them. Behavior problems may stem from problems at home and environment. (Interview 76) [Challenge:] Having the students keep a positive attitude. Trying to get students to see teachers as positive role models. (Interview 77) [Challenge:] Children’s background: personal life—family issues, drugs, early pregnancy; drugs, sex; profanity; economic/income status. Academic—coming to school with low level. Emotionally/financially. (Interview 78) [Teachers] really care about children—dedicated, impressive. Stay late—no pay. [Stay] half hour late—doing for classroom. Ways [they] relate to children. More than teacher/child—concerned parent relationship. I care about you. (Interview 81) Good group of children; they long for people to care for them. [We are] open to that. Where [school name]—we’re second home, safe haven. Living at another home, feeling nurturing of teacher. No adults at home—we provide. Program until 6:30 PM. Big part of life. That’s why I stay. (Interview 91) Needs a balance education/reading. No athletic, music, arts. Tired of reading. Tired of working. Bored kids. . . . Child hurting inside needs outlet, not just academics. (Interview 94)

91

92

CHAPTER 3

Circularity. As opposed to European-American linear thinking, Africanbased cultures promote circular thinking (Asante, 1987). The circularity is very closely related to continuous logic, discussed earlier, which manifests in a philosophy of the interconnectedness and cyclical nature of the universe. Whereas a “euro-linear” view seeks to predict and control, an “afrocircular” view seeks to interpret and understand (Asante, 1987, 1988), and so this can also be seen as related to the metaphysical mode of intersubjectivity. In conjunction with earlier examples of a perspective of interconnectedness and cyclical reality (as examples of continuous logic), our respondents’ cry to be understood and appreciated (see earlier discussion of humanism and in chap. 2 see uniqueness), juxtaposed against their resistance to being controlled (discussed in chap. 4) reveals the manifestation of circularity in their thinking. Following are some examples of resistance to control: [This] is an oppressive, exploitative environment. Command and control are dominant themes. (Interview 4) Have never seen employees treated so unjustly . . . (Interview 6) . . . in addition to this daily stress, [employees] have to coexist under an oppressive structure. (Interview 16)

Here, in demanding appreciation and resisting control, organizational members struggle to develop fluid, nonlinear relationships with managers that disseminate power and enhance participation. Our nonmanagerial respondents appear to prefer a relationship with management that appreciates organizational membership as fluid and circular—rather than viewing “management” and “employee” as rigid dichotomous categories arrayed linearly. This is revealed in their desire to be included in decision making (discussed earlier as intersubjectivity) and is discussed in chapter 4, as well. The value of circularity in manager–employee relationships is not to be confused with a rejection of positional status. In fact, managers and leaders who interact in ways that promote fluid and circular relationships garner the greatest admiration and respect from their employees. In this way, managers who promote and embody circularity enhance their status. Treatments of African-American culture often gloss over this distinction, implicitly equating circularity as antithetical to status structures. This is distinctly not the case in our data, and so it must be emphasized here that our notion of circularity in African-American culture, as reflected in our evidence, refers specifically to a mode of thinking, and is not be confused with the absence of status concerns. In fact, status remains quite important to the organizational members interviewed. In their desire for disseminated power, interviewees do not call for the removal of hierarchy, but rather, to have voice in decision making that directly affects them, to have autonomy in

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

93

their day-to-day tasks, and to be appreciated and valued by individuals who hold powerful positions. When this occurs, status is actually produced and reproduced in structurational fashion. In addition, members of the human service organization emphasize the importance of feedback, an inherently circular process of communication. Data must be filtered throughout the [organization]: board, executive team, managers need to hear feedback of data collected. (Interview 4) [Need to] hold weekly meeting with staff to improve deficiencies and get feedback from staff. (Interview 19) [Need] more support from administration, only see them when there is a problem. No positive feedback given on sensitive requests. . . . Need positive feedback/affirmation at times from administration. (Interview 42)

At the school, organizational members also express a desire to be included in decision making and to develop fluid, nonlinear, power-sharing relationships with leaders (as discussed previously). They also describe ways in which climate and morale operate in a circular relationship with leadership and community—in both positive and negative ways: Fresh ideas from the new teachers. It goes back to leader—shares and involved in a lot of activities. (Interview 75) Can’t trust administration (high, high). Want you to do activities, but complain when you do because they say you’re trying to get out of work— damned if you do, damned if you don’t. . . . Treating people the way you want to be treated (respect). Don’t get nasty when teachers are wanting to see you (start of day/afternoon) because of the tight schedules of teachers (8–3). Do things when you are supposed to and when you say you’re going to do them. (Interview 18) School climate not always positive. Teachers, staff, students are pessimistic—have negative perceptions—morale. Could be better—hard to please others. (Interview 95) A better relationship with parents than in past years. Now working as partners/volunteering. (Interview 99)

Inductivism. Whereas European-American cultures emphasize deductive reasoning, evidenced in the corporate reduction of almost all issues to “the bottom line,” African-American culture values inductive reasoning. Grounded in collectivism and holism, the tendency toward inductive thinking predisposes members of African-based cultures to reference their thinking toward the larger scheme, or “the big picture,” rather than toward “the bottom line.” This is closely related to interdependence, relational thinking, spirituality, mission/purpose/excellence, and humanism in that the primary

94

CHAPTER 3

concern overall (that makes up “the big picture”) is the preservation of the human spirit and dignity. The importance of money (the bottom line) beyond ensuring organizational survival is seen as secondary to human dignity and dedication to the mission (also discussed in chap. 2) of the organization (the big picture). Employees are good and the strength of the department, able to accomplish much with little resources. Yet, able to deal with [clients] in a rational and loving manner. Employees are faithful, regardless of dysfunctional system. . . . Management [has] no long-term vision. Operate under crisis management. . . . Working conditions are bad. . . . Disrespectful manner in dealing with employees—no communication. . . . Unaddressed problems also promotes unskilled workforce; not up-to-date for working anywhere else. No opportunity for growth or advancement; because we are so far behind everything. . . . Concern for people and finding out what is really going on is needed. . . . Respecting the dignity and integrity of every employee is a must. (Interview 5) Must review employee turnover, those committed to the mission of the [organization], with some seriousness. (Interview 6) It is a job to keep good employees positive and committed, money is not always important. (Interview 12) Manager’s sound judgment and expertise are openly disrespected by these types of decisions and for better or for worse, the manager still has to carry out the task and creates a problem for one’s integrity. (Interview 13, this respondent had told story of a decision interjected into the department by senior management that resulted in a poor outcome for a client) [I have] worked here for 26 years and [organization name] has some very good [staff] and employees here that truly care. God has kept this [organization] open for a reason—and people are not just coming here to collect a paycheck—people care and are committed to the mission. (Interview 17) People are here because they are committed, not just the money. . . . Money spent on frivolous items instead of improving employee morale. . . . [Need to] support and appreciate employees cross-the-board, irrespective we are working for little money. (Interview 22) [Recommendation:] improve employee morale and build better relationships. (Interview 27) Incentives, motivation, and appreciation necessary if salary is not forthcoming. We don’t see executive team unless something goes wrong. [They] don’t thank employees. . . . [Need to] develop [client]/family relationship; not just focus on dollars and cents. (Interview 28) Executives don’t care about staff. (Interview 32)

Likewise, at the school, employees express strong allegiance to their educational mission (as discussed in chap. 2). In addition, they express praise

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

95

for this view in administration, and they emphasize the greater importance of the educational mission over their own personal financial concerns. Strong administration. [Administrator] envisions gets whole picture where school going, where children are going. [Administrator name] too—administrative team. (Interview 91) Not a money issue when teaching, passion for teaching. (Interview 92) Staff really cares about kids. Not about money. 2–3 months no pay. (Interview 94)

Summary. This section has explained each of the cultural rules/resources extracted from our data, providing specific examples from both data sets that support our extractions of ways in which African-American organizational members function according to African-based cultural structures (Table 3.2). The next section examines 20th-century Afrocentric theory as applied to African-American organizations. We illustrate the ways in which our 20 African-based rules/resources of organizing are validated by this body of theory.

AFROCENTRIC THEORY Afrocentrism is a philosophic approach that takes African-based cultural reality as its primary vantage point. Asante’s (1980a, 1987, 1988) Afrocentric theory of communication holds as its basic premise that the “objectivity” of social scholars is in actuality a collective subjectivity of European culture. Eurocentric theorizing is marked by positivist assumptions, including objectivity, mind–body separation (Cartesian dualism), reductionism, linearity, and the separation of the researcher as subject from the phenomenon as object. Moreover, he suggests that this “euro-linear” view particularly places Africa and her diasporic peoples as object rather than subject. Whereas a euro-linear view seeks to predict and control, an “afro-circular” view seeks to interpret and understand—aims common to other postpositivist philosophic approaches. Within the Afrocentric perspective, this aim is achieved by grounding an understanding of African descended people in the goals, values, and practices of African culture. Applications of Afrocentric Theory to Organization Few scholars have applied Afrocentrism to organizational theory. Here, we review the work of three scholars who have done so in ways that are most germane to our study. First, we present Scheile’s (1990) Afrocentric model for human service organizations. Second, we describe Warfield-Coppock’s

96

CHAPTER 3

(1994, 1995) models of Afrocentric organizations and Afrocentric organizational development. Finally, we acknowledge Cheatham’s (1990) application of Afrocentricity to a career development model. Afrocentric Theory for Human Service Organizations. Schiele (1990), drawing from some of the tenets of the Afrocentric paradigm, identifies and discusses characteristics of an Afrocentric organization. His ideas are particularly germane to our present investigation because his focus is the human service organization. Schiele defines human service organizations as “organizations that process, sustain, or change individuals. . . . Some examples are welfare organizations, hospitals, schools, mental health agencies, and churches” (p. 159). By this definition, both of the organizations in our study could be identified as human service organizations. Following major Afrocentric scholars (e.g., Akbar, 1984a, 1985; Asante, 1980a, 1980b, 1987; Baldwin, 1981, 1986; Boykin, 1983; Boykin & Toms, 1985; Hale, 1982; Khatib, Akbar, McGee, & Nobles, 1979; Mbiti, 1970; Nichols, 1976; Nobles, 1978, 1980; Williams, 1981), Scheile assumes “that because traditional African philosophical assumptions continue to be a major part of the African American’s ethos, there is a need for a social science model or conceptual paradigms to reflect the cultural background and reality of African people” (p. 147). He then applies several tenets of Afrocentrism to organizational theory: collectivism; spirituality; the assumption of the inherent good of human beings; affective epistemology; the assumption of the nonrational nature of human behavior; and the axiology of interpersonal relations. In applying these tenets to organizational theory, Scheile is careful to point out that aspects of these tenets are quite similar to some mainstream organizational theories, but that the difference lies in their “organizational normality” or “standard of acceptability” (p. 147). Schiele (1990) lists several tenets of Western organizational theories, most chiefly productivity, efficiency, and individualism. His model is centered on issues of human identity. The Eurocentric model conceives of human beings separately from others, whereas the Afrocentric model conceives of individual identity as collective. “Although this model emphasizes collectivity, it does not reject the notion of uniqueness (Akbar, 1984a; Boykin, 1983; Boykin & Toms, 1985). Rather, it rejects the idea that the individual can be understood separate from others (Akbar, 1984a)” (Schiele, 1990, p. 149). Scheile’s Afrocentric model differs from existing Eurocentric theories “in its view of organizational normality, its concept of human identity, and its notion of organizational survival” (p. 151). Scheile (1990) takes each of the tenets outlined above in turn and discusses the ways in which an organization could be designed and accomplished to fulfill it. Collectivism would require an Afrocentric organization to make organizational unity a primary goal. To accomplish this, low internal differentiation of tasks would be most suitable. To accomplish “oneness,”

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

97

superior/subordinate relationships “would be downplayed in favor of consensus group processes” (p. 152) resulting in a more equitable distribution of power than in conventional Western models. We see this in our data in several places. In Table 3.2, the primacy of unity is identified as a salient element in the rule/resources of African-American culture, and several examples are given from both data sets. In addition, both data sets are replete with references to the value of communal teamwork over traditional (Eurocentric) notions of superior–subordinate relationships. This also invokes the cultural rules of shared responsibility and intersubjectivity (Table 3.2); members of both organizations highly value the accomplishment of work through unity and group decision making. Furthermore, members of both organizations explicitly articulate a desire to see power distributed equitably through the organization, rather than existing at the top of a hierarchy. Even if the hierarchical structure is not changed, African-American organizations need to validate and value their interpersonal processes. Our discussion of power in chapter 2 illustrates this pattern in the data. In chapters 4 and 5, we document power struggles as a salient communication pattern in both organizations. Spirituality requires a recognition of the nonmaterial aspect of human beings. Nurturance of organizational members’ spirituality would critically shape their performance. Spirituality as a tenet of organizational function would require a recognition of organizational morality, which Scheile (1990) sees as essential to the human service organization. “Organizational morality refers to a state in which organizational members have the highest regard for human life and dignity and consistently display behaviors that reflect this value. . . . To this end, humanistic values . . . are moved from obscurity to the forefront of organizational priorities” (pp. 152–153). Again, in our data, we see organizational members invoking rules and resources that mirror an Afrocentric model. Spirituality is documented in our data (Table 3.2). Also, Scheile (1990) links spirituality to humanism (Table 3.2), a value that is also seen in both data sets. Scheile’s requirement that Afrocentric organizations recognize the fundamental goodness of human beings is congruent with McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y. In an Afrocentric organization, therefore, rigid supervision and control would be unnecessary. Scheile acknowledges that further conceptual work in this area is needed relating to issues of accountability, hiring and firing, and censure. The answer to this problem may appear in our data; circularity, relational orientation, mission/purpose/excellence and common good (Table 3.2) as fundamental elements of African-American culture are related to the requirement for African-American culture of a relaxation of rigid supervision and control. When they are viewed as fundamentally good, relationally oriented, and committed to excellence in the mission of the common good, organizational

98

CHAPTER 3

members may be seen to be capable of building circular (mutually accountable) relationships with their “superiors” (“leaders” in an Afrocentric model). Accountability is thus embedded in circular organizational relationships, censure is mutually accepted and expected in both directions, and organizational members are responsible and accountable to one another for the purpose of accomplishment of goals toward the common good. In fact, in reading through members’ commentary from both organizations, in our examples in chapter 2, as well as those to come in chapters 4 and 5, it is clear that the recurring cry for recognition and reward might be seen more as a call for the recognition of everyone’s fundamental human goodness and value to the organization than as an expression of individuality. Again, we must note that this set of values is not to be confused with the absence of status concerns; rather, a circular mode of thinking requires mutually respectful relationships among persons with differing status, not the erasure of status differentials. In a related vein, the epistemological validity of an affective approach to knowledge requires the inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative (subjective) means of reviewing worker performance. Scheile’s (1990) Afrocentric model views affect as offsetting the use of rationality, not replacing it. Here, intersubjectivity and relational orientation (Table 3.2) are again relevant. If knowledge is gained by an affective approach to rationality, mutual agreement as to what counts as knowledge (intersubjectivity) must be negotiated relationally. We can see here that inductivism (Table 3.2) is also crucial to an understanding of Scheile’s (1990) Afrocentric model; in an Afrocentric organization knowledge is built from the ground up with an eye to the “big picture” and everyone’s place in it, rather than deductively reducing things to the “bottom-line.” Likewise, the Afrocentric view of human behavior as nonrational views human behavior as derived from feeling, rather than reasoning, and requires a de-emphasis on rate of production. The Afrocentric organization would recognize the role of affect in people’s lives, maintain a view of human beings as fallible, and downplay time and speed as organizational objectives. Scheile (1990) argues that the Eurocentric value of efficiency is grounded in a Weberian notion of rationality. The Eurocentric values of measurable productivity and monosynchronic time orientation (Table 1.1) thus must give way to a work ethic based not on Eurocentric notions of efficiency, but on appropriate timeliness (polysynchronic time orientation, Table 3.2) and on quality and purpose (mission/purpose/excellence, Table 3.2). Finally, the preeminent axiology of interpersonal relations would require an Afrocentric organization to enhance interpersonal relationships as an end in itself rather than a means to achieving an end as it is pursued in the human relations model. Scheile (1990) links this tenet to the organization’s ties to the community. “Meaningful and indelible interpersonal bonds would

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

99

help the human service organization to uniformly serve and represent its community, providing the community with a model for unity through the practice of an interpersonal, human-centered axiology” (p. 156). Clearly, the African-American cultural rules/resources relational orientation and commitment to community (Table 3.2) are salient here. In addition, humanism, collectivism, and communalism are also important, as organizational members must come together relationally in communal ways, grounded in a recognition of the intrinsic value of humanity, to create such a collective commitment to community as Scheile (1990) describes. Scheile’s model is enormously heuristic, raising questions regarding restructuring and how to implement the proposed paradigm. It is an ambitious attempt to characterize an organizational form that would exist as an alternative to the traditional Western ideal of the organization. As shown by the connections we draw between Scheile’s (1990) model and our data (as depicted in Table 3.2), Scheile’s description of the organizational form is strikingly similar to the functioning that our respondents in both organizations attempt to achieve within the confines of the European-based organizational forms in which they exist. An Afrocentric organization would be characterized by a unified, collective membership maintaining survival; a close identification between the community and the organization; a deemphasis on the rate of production and efficiency; low internal differentiation; and emphasis on consensus decisionmaking; a positive, not negative, outlook on worker behavior; a strong emphasis on enhancing members’ spirituality; a balanced (i.e., qualitative and quantitative) means of evaluating worker performance; and an interpersonal, human-centered axiology. (p. 159)

The similarities between Scheile’s description and the cultural rules/resources listed in Table 3.2 are particularly striking in light of the fact that the cultural rules/resources in Table 3.2 were developed directly from the data. Following a strictly interpretive or grounded theory approach, we avoided reading and discussion of the Afrocentric literature during the process of extracting cultural values from our data and attempted to bracket our knowledge of that literature. We turned to the literature after the table was constructed only to validate the rules and resources extracted from the data. Clearly, our data validates Scheile’s theory as much as his theory validates our data. A Theory of Afrocentric Organizations/Organizational Development. Nsenga Warfield-Coppock (1994, 1995) begins to develop a theory of Afrocentric organizations and applies it to organizational development. In her work, she also describes the “enculturated organization”—a phenomenon that occurs when an organizational membership is predominantly cultur-

100

CHAPTER 3

ally African-American and is organized in a Eurocentric form. In this current chapter, we focus on her Afrocentric organizational theory; her description of the enculturated organization is discussed in a subsequent chapter, as it is more salient to our description of problems caused by the contradictions of interpenetrating structures than it is to our description of the AfricanAmerican cultural structure itself. Warfield-Coppock (1994, 1995) summarizes features that distinguish a Eurocentric from an Afrocentric organization across several dimensions. This comparison appears in Table 3.3, which we have adapted from WarfieldCoppock (1995). Even the most cursory glance at Warfield Coppock’s organizational features for the Afrocentric organization (Table 3.3) reveals its similarity to the values we extracted from our data (Table 3.2). Warfield-Coppock (1994, 1995) describes the Afrocentric organization as based on traditional beliefs and values of African philosophy, following Scheile (1990). Grounded in the literature on African-American psychology, she describes major characteristics of the African personality: spiritual foundation (harmony and balance); spiritual principles of cooperation, commonality, similarity, synthesis, restraint, respect, responsibility, and reciprocity; racial pride; collective self; affective epistemology; group referent behavior (interdependence); multiplicity of form and movement; high regard for life; and interpersonal connectedness (Warfield-Coppock 1994). She argues that these personality features are also prevalent in predominantly African-American organizations and that it would thus be prudent to design organizations so that such traits are supported and maximized for positive outcomes. In short, she TABLE 3.3 Warfield-Coppock’s (1995) Afrocentric Conceptual Framework for Organizations Organizational Dimension

Afrocentric Organization

Eurocentric Organization

Cosmology (worldview) Axiology (values) Ontology (nature of man) Epistemology Organization style Management Leadership Administrative Power/authority Decision making Problem solving Staff relations Work orientation Productivity

Oneness with others Humanistic Natural goodness Spiritual Support/care for group Communal teams Selected by the people Humanistic policies Council/spread Collaborative Win-win Familial/interdependent Sense of excellence Cooperative teams

Control Materialistic Do before others do Self Large profits Hierarchy Authoritarian Based on bottom line In the hierarchy Win-lose Handed down Person to object Quantitative output Competitive

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

101

suggests an organizational form that is congruent with the culture of an African-American membership. Citing psychologists and scholars of African-American identity, WarfieldCoppock (1994) identifies the transition of African-descended persons as they develop their consciousness of cultural identity: pre-encounter (recognizing the need for change); encounter (circumstances leading to metamorphosis); immersion–emersion (conversion into African- or Black-oriented behavior); internalization (acceptance and quieting of anxiety); and internalization–commitment (sustaining the new identity and extending it to assist others in transition). Warfield-Coppock (1994) theorizes that members of a predominantly African-American organization (previously existing or in the process of formation) may choose to bring cultural consciousness into the organizational setting. She posits that the collective behavior and culture of organizations may follow the same or a similar series of phases that individuals do in making a transition to an African-centered identity. For our purposes here, the most salient contribution made by WarfieldCoppock (1994) in her chapter on organizational development is the depiction of Afrocentric organizational charts. She posits that the term structure is more suitable to a Eurocentric system and its values of competitive and hierarchical management. She prefers the term form to describe the Afrocentric organization, as it allows a more flexible and dynamic system with multiple authorities and collective decision making. She prefers an organizational form that can evolve and expand to allow for change and variable needs. Whereas she calls Eurocentric organizational charts “hierarchies,” she calls Afrocentric organizational charts “working collectives.” Figure 3.2 illustrates Warfield-Coppock’s (1994) organizational charts for Afrocentric organizational forms.

FIG. 3.2. Examples of Afrocentric organizational charts as working collectives. From Warfield-Coppock (1994).

102

CHAPTER 3

These organizational designs are more than just flattened hierarchies; in fact, they are not vertical hierarchies at all. People are represented by small boxes in Chart 1 and by small circles in Chart 2 (Fig. 3.2). The organizational charts are lateral rather than vertical. Power, authority, and control are thus embedded in evolutionary and flexible relationships between people rather than along predetermined rigid formal lines. One’s power (and presumably one’s status), thus, is determined not by traditional European notions of legitimate authority over others beneath one in a hierarchy, but rather by influence with others with whom one is connected relationally. Recall that in an Afrocentric organization, relationship-building is a goal in itself (Scheile, 1990); however, it is also the means by which tasks are accomplished. Relationships and tasks are mutually defining; thus, organizational goals in conjunction with individual talents and skills drive organizational form through the construction of collectives working toward those goals. As organizational goals evolve and change, organizational form evolves and changes. This ideal validates (among others) the cultural rules/resources of continuous logic and circularity extracted from our data (Table 3.2). Warfield-Coppock’s (1994) organizational charts are quite similar to sociometric and social network diagrams found in the sociological literature. In addition, Everett Rogers’ work (e.g., 1995) has documented numerous times the tremendous power of relationships in the diffusion of innovations. The difference here is that Warfield-Coppock advocates the strategic design of organizations as social networks of human relationships, rather than vertical hierarchies of positions occupied by human beings. Chester Barnard (1938) long ago documented the existence of the “informal organization” of relationships that arises as a natural phenomenon in all organizational settings. The formalization of such a structure, as in “Fayol’s Bridge” [Fayol, 1949 (orig. 1925)], is another nod to the same phenomenon, suspending the scalar chain and legitimizing for work purposes the use of relationships that fall outside the formal vertical hierarchy. Both Barnard and Fayol, however, privilege the “formal” (vertical) over the “informal” (lateral) organizational relationship. Warfield-Coppock’s (1994) organizational charts, on the other hand, illustrate that her Afrocentric ideal for organizational design is to overtly recognize, maximize, and support these working relationships as the primary form of the organization, rather than as a supplement to it. This kind of model is quite in keeping with Taylor and Van Every’s (2000) conceptualization of organization as communication (see chap. 1). In such circular organizational forms as Warfield-Coppock (1994, 1995) advocates, relationships become the engine that drives organizational progress; in the traditional Eurocentric organizational design, relationships are merely lubricant. In Afrocentric organizational forms,

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

103

power and authority are often spread across the members of an administrative council. . . . Within a contemporary context, collaborative techniques outweigh competitive or confrontational means to solving problems. . . . Some organizations use or are instituting an organizational Council of Elders, thereby providing an African context for advice and resolving problems or conflicts. (Warfield-Coppock, 1995, pp. 39–40)

Here we see a strong connection to our data, as well, in cultural rules and resources such as the value of age and the value of experience (see Table 3.2). In addition, according to Warfield-Coppock’s (1995) Afrocentric model of organizing, leadership exists at the will of the people; leaders are selected and deselected by the people. When leadership becomes inappropriate or ineffective, followers “simply move away and let the leader officiate over nothing and no one” (p. 39), and the flexible nature of the organizational form allows this to naturally occur. Conversely, such a concept of leadership would be dysfunctional if embedded in Fayol’s (1949) traditional European-centered organizational chart. In the traditional European hierarchical organization, power, authority, and leadership are embedded positionally; in an African-centered working collective, there is no positional connection to leadership or authority. Power, leadership, and authority reside in and are driven by relationships in a working collective. The link here to our datasets is clear. Such an African-centered conception of leadership is a powerful explanation for the apparent paradox discussed in chapter 2 of organizational members calling for more leadership while at the same time expressing distrust in power and authority. Seen through an Afrocentric lens, it may not be a matter of paradox at all, but rather a matter of inappropriate organizational structure—the interpenetration of contradictory structures. It may be that they are calling for leadership relationally and distrusting power positionally. In the organizations investigated here, a relational approach to leadership is clearly apparent. The call for “more leadership” is juxtaposed with a desire for better communication from leaders; at the same time, organizational members call for a distribution of power. The perceived lack of communication is problematic as it is seen as a manifestation of implicit disregard that diverges from a humanistic philosophy; organizational members feel ignored and thus disrespected. It seems here that organizational members’ social practices are re/producing an organizational form quite similar to that which Warfield-Coppock (1994, 1995) proposes—with leadership embedded in relationships and equitable distributions of power accompanied by a human-centered philosophy. Their experience in invoking such African-centered rules and resources against a European-centered organizational form is one of frustration and dysfunction because they are not re-

104

CHAPTER 3

producing the structure of their organizational form. (See our discussion of structuration theory in chap. 1 for more explanation.) We posit that such dysfunction is the result of cultural divergence due to contradictory interpenetrating cultural structures. The divergence experienced by organizational members from such interpenetration is further discussed in the next chapter. Warfield-Coppock (1995) also describes the arrangement of physical space to support the interaction and harmony necessary for such organizational forms. “Large open spaces in circular manner can be fed by small and open individual offices, which may be used only sporadically by staff. When there is a need for private conversations, offices may be used” (p. 40). Interaction and harmony are central to an Afrocentric organizational model. Harmony is prerequisite to each member’ s expression of his/her full potential. Likewise, harmonious relationships engender “a sense of excellence” (p. 40) as they foster collective projects with little sense of individual “ownership.” “Productivity is high as staff work cooperatively, assist with problems, and are open to constructive criticism. All individuals are valued for their unique talents, may share jobs, and have assigned responsibility to enrich their own skill and knowledge” (p. 40). This is precisely the value, invoked by our respondents, that we have labeled humanism (Table 3.2). Like Scheile (1990), Warfield-Coppock (1994, 1995) validates our extraction of several other cultural rules and resources for African-American culture, such as relational orientation, spirituality, shared responsibility, mission/purpose/excellence, collectivism, interdependence, common good, and communalism. Warfield-Coppock’s (1994, 1995) Afrocentric conception for organizations relies upon traditional African-based values, such as “cooperation, caring, interrelatedness, interdependence, respect, responsibility, mutual aid, and reciprocity” (1995, p. 40). In her chapter describing Afrocentric organizational development, Warfield-Coppock (1994) describes several characteristics for assessing an organization’s cultural congruence or Afrocentric climate. These further validate our extraction of African-American cultural rules and resources from our data (see Table 3.2): a worldview of oneness with all things and people (holism), humanistic and people-oriented values (humanism), a belief in the inherent goodness of humankind (humanism), and a belief in the source of knowledge as spiritual (spirituality), an organizational philosophy supporting the group over profits (common good), a communal management style (communalism), a supportive/relational leadership style (relational orientation), humanistic administrative policies (humanism), equitably distributed power and authority (not attached to position) and the rejection of hierarchy in favor of working collectives (unity), collaborative problem solving/decision making (collectivism), familial and interdependent staff relations (interdependence), work orientation of excellence (mission/purpose/excellence), productivity through cooperative teams

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

105

(shared responsibility), and a mission that includes the liberation of people of African descent (commitment to community). An Organizational Application of the Afrocentric Paradigm. Cheatham (1990) develops a heuristic model of career development for African Americans, arguing that career development as a counseling intervention is based on Eurocentric concepts. Cheatham’s work does not attempt organizational theory development, simply a model for career counseling of African-American college students. Cheatham quite consciously acknowledges that the Eurocentric social order has a more direct effect on the career development of U.S. college students than the Afrocentric social order. The organizational systems the students enter in their careers are largely “mainstream” American workplaces, and thus are Eurocentrically-based social structures. Although Cheatham’s work is oriented to the concrete/specific level of assisting African-American students in developing careers in Eurocentric systems rather than to the abstract/general level of organizational design, his work is presented here as an excellent application of the Afrocentric paradigm to theorizing organizational life. Cheatham maintains that African-American clients are inappropriately understood by counselors who model their practices on Eurocentric assumptions of the universality of beliefs, attitudes, and values. For example, he references the African-based tradition of collectivity, interdependence, and affiliation and argues that African-American clients who maintain interdependent reliance on familial relationships and friends are fully consistent with Afrocentric frame of reference. However, because Eurocentrism emphasizes individuation and autonomy, Eurocentrically-based evaluations often conclude that African-American clients are developmentally delayed. Another example he provides is the Afrocentric values of group progress over individual progress and of cooperation over competition—and the ways in which such orientations contradict, respectively, the Eurocentric marketplace notions of individualism and of work as a means of fulfilling personal/individual goals. As such, an individual who places the group’s interests before his own career goals and is uncomfortable competing may very likely be judged to be dysfunctional by Eurocentric standards. “Eurocentrism, thus asserts cultural homogeneity; it obscures African Americans’ unique characteristics and it ushers misapprehension and misdiagnosis of behaviors that are not in conformance with Eurocentric conceptualizations” (p. 336). Cheatham (1990) provides an overview of the history of career education in the United States. He notes that higher education curricula for teachers and counselors (who implement career education) strongly reflect “values and aspirations and attitudes toward work and career that are peculiar to a monocultural (i.e., Eurocentric) world view of the universe, of one’s rela-

106

CHAPTER 3

tionship to the universe and to other humans” (p. 339). African-Americans, and other non-European cultural groups, are thus underserved by career development counseling in U.S. institutions. Although he unfortunately uses some essentialistic language (such as “opposition”) in comparisons of Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism, he strives to explicitly eschew essentialistic thinking. His model of career development for African-American college students has four basic components: American experiences unique to African Americans (slavery, discrimination, etc.); Afrocentric social order; Eurocentric social order; and survival and achievement of African Americans in a Eurocentric society. The model allows for individuals to vary in the degree to which they are Afrocentrically and/or Eurocentrically acculturated. It presumes African-American clients’ awareness of African-American culture and of the psychological stress engendered by a “minority status” in society. In short, Cheatham (1990) argues that Eurocentric ways of thinking about work and career are not universal for American citizens. The model advances the proposition that the “Eurocentric social order has a direct and predominate effect on the career development process while the influence of the Africentric social order is tentative and indirect” (p. 340). Cheatham also addresses the link between Afrocentric and Eurocentric influences on African-American cultural and individual development. “The model argues for the use of culturespecific information that enables the helper to distinguish between an African-American client’s psychosocial dynamics and behaviors, and those behaviors that are products of obligatory, grudging accommodation to normative, ‘majority culture’ (i.e., Eurocentric) structures” (p. 337). Criticisms of Afrocentrism Afrocentric theory and Africalogical research are by no means new. Winters (1998) provides a comprehensive review of the history of such work. Citing sources that date back to the 1840s, Winters (1998) provides evidence to support his claim that the fields of African-American and African history were dominated by African-American Afrocentrists up to the 1930s. In the 1940s, American scholars of European descent began to dominate the field of African-American history with Eurocentric viewpoints; in the 1960s, European Eurocentric scholars began to dominate. In the 1970s, French-speaking African Afrocentrists and English-speaking African-American Afrocentrists brought Africalogical research back into the domain of Afrocentric scholars, particularly those of African descent (Winters, 1998). Winters (1998) categorizes Afrocentric research into three schools of thought: the African-American school of Afrocentric research focusing on historical research (including the field of communication); the Frenchspeaking African and Afro-Caribbean school of Afrocentricity focusing on

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

107

linguistic research; and the “pluridisciplinarians” (including himself) who combine both historical and linguistic methods. The central element in all Afrocentric research is the fact that ancient Kemet (or Egypt) was a Black African civilization. As a result of the theoretical base, most of the arguments made by contemporary Afrocentrists (include the) African origin of Egypt (Delaney, 1879) and (the) African origin of civilizations in Europe and Asia (Johnson, 1971 pp. 388–389; Dubois, 1946 p. 122). (Winters, 1998, p. 73)

Certainly, Afrocentrism has been a subject of much debate, and Winters’ unstated and unexamined assumption that Afrocentric scholars must be by definition of African descent is an excellent illustration of why some Afrocentric work has drawn criticism for being implicitly essentialist. In general, Afrocentric theory has been criticized for adhering to a rhetorical strategy of dichotomy and essentialism in the placing of Eurocentric and Afrocentric thought as oppositional and philosophy as attached to the ethnicity of the scholar. McPhail (1998) provides a comprehensive yet concise summary of the debates surrounding Afrocentric thought, focusing on what he calls “the complicitous acceptance” (p. 114) of essentialist epistemology. McPhail (1998) argues that the underlying assumption of Afrocentrism is the coherent integration of similarity and difference, and that Afrocentric theorists have failed to fulfill the potential of this assumption in the construction of their own arguments. In short, McPhail argues that Afrocentric theorists, including Asante, have been implicitly complicitous in reifying essentialist assumptions. “The most controversial unproblematic aspects of the theory [are] its essentialist depiction of differences between African and European cultures” (p. 117). We must be careful to avoid such essentialism in our present endeavor in the description of predominantly African-American organizations with European-based structural form. Hence, although we compare rules and resources of European-American culture and African-American culture and discuss the ways in which these contradict each other in the organizational setting, we take care to ground in our data our descriptions of the rules and resources of African-American culture and the consequences of incompatibility with certain features of European-American culture. We also take care to conceptualize culture as a repository of rules and resources that can be drawn upon by cultural members, to conceptualize each set of rules and resources compared between cultures as existing on a continuum rather than in mutually exclusive dichotomies, and to conceptualize contradiction as divergence, as discussed earlier. In short, when we discuss the interpenetration of contradictory cultural structures, we essentialize neither the cultural features nor the individual cultural members.

108

CHAPTER 3

McPhail (1998) goes on to explore positions taken on each of three central issues in theoretic debates over Afrocentricity: the African ethos, the Eurocentric roots of Afrocentricity, and the African-American dilemma. His organizational scheme is based on Asante’s (1989) description of Afrocentricity’s essential grounds. “There is first suggested the existence of an African Cultural System; then the juxtaposition of African and American ways; and finally the values derived from the African-American experience” (p. 2). According to McPhail (1998), in addition to depicting the essential grounds of Afrocentricity, these three aspects of Afrocentricity also illustrate the essential issues at stake in the debate between Afrocentrists and their opponents: whether or not there is, in fact, an essentially “African” culture, whether or not African and American ways are essentially different, and whether or not there are specific values that are essential aspects of the African-American experience. (p. 118, emphasis in original)

Afrocentric scholarship, regardless of criticisms against it, is crucial to a thorough understanding of the phenomena in our data. Afrocentrists and their critics agree that Eurocentric scholars place Africa and the African diaspora on the margins of historical accounts, writing with a Western European viewpoint as their center. Likewise, they agree that African-American culture exists and that some form of African culture influenced the development of African-American culture. Where they depart is their disagreement as to the extent to which certain features of African-American culture are essentially African-based, but this debate does not detract from our application of Afrocentric theory. Further, our application of Afrocentric theory to our data does not become unhinged by arguments as to whether what has been called “Afrocentric” is influenced by European thought. Rather, by following McPhail (1998), we can look to Afrocentric theory for insights into multiculturalism. We can draw upon Afrocentrism’s “recognition of complementarity as the foundation of human thought and action” (McPhail, 1998, p. 126), and move toward a more integrative and humanistic approach that relies upon coherence between the Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism rather than opposition and/or complicity. Clearly, at the cultural group level, African-Americans and EuropeanAmericans have taken quite different paths to contemporary organizational life. Just as clearly, cultural differences between these two groups have been documented by numerous scholars. The traditional American corporate hierarchical organizational form is grounded in European culture, and organizational forms purported to be centered on African values (most notably, Warfield-Coppock, 1994, 1995) differ distinctly from traditional Eurocentric vertically hierarchical forms—regardless of whether the hierarchy is tall or flat, centralized or decentralized. The concept of the flexible working

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

109

collective whose evolving form is driven by an amalgamation of organizational goals and individual skills/talents is grounded in the values of traditional African cultures and African-American personality (as documented by the psychological literature). The recognition, maximization, and support of relationships as the driving force behind organizational form rather than a supplement to organizational structure (as viewed by Eurocentric theory) distinguishes the Afrocentric organizational form from the Eurocentric organizational structure. Metatheoretic arguments as to the extent to which such “Afrocentric” theorizing is uniquely “African” do not detract from our application of such theory to predominantly African-American organizations. Summary The foregoing examination of 20th-century Afrocentric scholarship on African-American organizations has revealed that the cultural rules/resources extracted from our data and presented in Table 3.2 are indeed African based. The next section briefly examines traditional African organizational forms and the ways in which they embrace African cultural systems that contradict European-based cultural systems. Later, in chapter 4, we illustrate how imperialism and slavery impact these traditional African and African-American cultural modes of organizing.

TRADITIONAL AFRICAN ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS Khapoya (1998), in his book The African Experience, contends that Africa needs to be understood in its totality. He suggests that Africa’s history, its geography, and its culture and social norms interact in such ways as to produce an Africa that is much more complicated and much more dynamic than is immediately apparent. Our descriptions of traditional African rule are taken from Khapoya (1998). We have chosen to rely heavily on this source here because of Khapoya’s unique focus on organizational structures, his attention to interaction processes, and his holistic approach to African culture. Khapoya (1998) discusses African traditional institutions and examines political systems, ranging from small chiefdoms in which everyone was related to everyone else (where power and authority were thus based on kinship) to huge empires. Khapoya describes essentially two types of political systems: states and stateless societies. States were organized bureaucratically, whereas stateless societies were decentralized and based on kinship. In these decentralized systems social groups, such as secret societies

110

CHAPTER 3

(briefly reviewed later), “played a very strong role in maintaining order and discipline and harnessing the resources of the community for collective goals” (p. 61). According to Khapoya (1998), most Africans lived in stateless societies prior to European rule. Apter (1965) identifies three kinds of traditional African authority patterns: segmental (stateless), hierarchical, and pyramidal. Khapoya’s (1998) descriptions of these authority systems illustrate the diverse and complex nature of organizational systems in Africa. Although communalism and group functioning are foundational to African societies, there are other systems of functioning that are as much a part of African cultures and political systems. These other forms organization must be recognized if we are to understand the broader structures of traditional African organizing. A recognition of these other organizational systems also helps explain why participants in our study articulated such disfavor for the vertically hierarchical system when it was functioning with disrespect and lack of regard for organizational members. This phenomenon in the data is further explored in chapter 4 as we discuss the interpenetration of cultural structures. Segmental Systems The segmental system is a decentralized stateless society (Khapoya, 1998). “Such a society is ruled by elders, members of an age-set or counsel chosen from different lineages; it does not have a powerful political figure” (p. 61). Khapoya (1998) gives several examples of such systems: According to Uchendu (1965), among the Ibos of Nigeria, each village was regarded as autonomous in matters affecting it. The village was segmented into lineages and each lineage was further subdivided into sub-lineages. A lineage occupied a certain area that was divided into compounds. Within each compound were several households. The compound, the lineage, and the village each had a head. Indeed politics and government at the village level were “an exercise in direct democracy.” The political structure at the village level included a legislative assembly. What we might call interest groups like secret societies, priestly associations, title societies, and age-grade associations played important roles. The legislative assembly held open-air meetings at which extensive discussions took place, much like town hall meetings in early New England in the United States. Everyone was free to contribute to the debate, after which the elders (of the legislative assembly) retreated to a separate meeting to consider all the views presented and to reach a wise decision, usually by consensus. The elders were men of high standing and prestige, respected for their wisdom, and trusted to consider all the views presented at the open-air meeting. The decision reached was then declared law only after was given “a ritual binder” by one of the holy men, to be sure that it was in keeping with custom and tradition. Compound heads were responsible for

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

111

fully informing every one in their compounds about new laws so promulgated. (pp. 62–63)

In the segmental system, communication and feedback are essential. This system is highly participative and inclusive of the compound, lineage, and village. Uchendu’s (1965, cited in Khapoya, 1998) description provides this picture of organizational communication process that is open and inclusive of all voices. The process allows for participation and involvement at the village level, and this process is complemented by democratic relationships. The cry for being included and for knowing that employees’ individual opinions or perspectives are heard and respected is consistently echoed in both organizations we studied. For example, Present administration has curtailed communication significantly. . . . Managers are divided, don’t communicate, caught a cycle of undermining one another; very dysfunctional. (Interview 5) Improve managerial interaction and give respect to department managers at meetings—speaking to a person as an adult not a child. . . . Make it possible for managers to participate in the development process and respect their decisions/judgments. (Interview 11) Submitted requests to senior management is not addressed only when things get out of hand. How can I have the responsibility and not the authority? (Interview 15)

From a historical perspective, this desire for a communal system of functioning is analogous to the segmental system that can be identified in different parts of traditional Africa. African collectivism emerged in response to the need for group survival. For societies that eked out a living from the soil, that hunted and gathered, or that appeared always to live at the mercy of diseases, vagaries of weather, and high mortality rates, survival was very much dependent on people living together, working the soil together, sharing tasks, and protecting and comforting each other in a variety of groups. To be banished from one’s group, for any reason, was to have one’s life hang in the balance, to be at high risk. One simply could not survive on one’s own. (Khapoya, 1998, p. 45)

Khapoya (1998) also points out several cultures that modified the collectivist ethos, emphasizing “individual autonomy and fulfillment within and between social groups” (p. 45). Secret societies are a primary example of group-oriented social organizations in traditional Africa. The societies range in size, but all are fundamentally valuable to the community as they perform vital functions. Entrance

112

CHAPTER 3

into and the activities of these secret societies were highly ritualized and codified. “Men’s secret societies, in particular, had important judicial functions, helping to settle disputes between lineages, sometimes ordering punishments and seeing them carried out by its junior members wearing masks to conceal their identity—and to emphasize the spiritual basis of their authority” (Bohannan & Curtain, 1988, p. 152, quoted by Khapoya, 1998, p. 43). The collectivist ethos, the strong sense of group identification, manifested in organizations such as secret societies, emphasizes and brings specific attention to the importance of group identity and its function for African people. Because we view culture as transmitted through the generations, this particular ethos remains important in understanding not only the African-American experience but African-American organizational life itself. The slave experience, discussed later, also reveals the use of group identification for the purposes of survival that is indigenous to group functioning in Africa. Thus, we may reasonably conclude that the group concept of survival was reenacted but not created through the slave experience of Africans brought as a cultural group to the United States. Although family structures were separated or destroyed and linguistic and language abilities impaired by not being able to communicate with one another, the group orientation of functioning was indigenous to the early African American’s cultural identity. Here again, survival in groups was and is a part of the African cultural identity and facilitates survival through often difficult and dehumanizing conditions. Still, the group survives, as Akbar (1984b) points out, with great strength because they have endured slavery. If people can survive en masse what African Americans have survived— severed from homelands, the Middle Passage, the death of families, the death of children, persecutions and hardships endured in the United States for almost 400 years—that great strength as a people is a natural result. In addition, as a group it only becomes natural for African Americans to remain in organizations that might be perceived as unhealthy or dysfunctional; there is a connection between remaining in such organizations and understanding remaining together in the struggle because struggle has been a significant part of the journey of life. A most important component of the struggle was the hope of overcoming, improving the human condition, and persevering to achievement of success. Organizational members in our study understand both the need for cultural identity (group identification) and their own human or professional development, as articulated in both data sets. This theme was so strong as eventually to be theorized as one of our problematics (see chap. 2). As such, of the three traditional African organizational forms described here, we see the segmental system as most clearly related to the phenomena identified in both datasets.

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

113

Hierarchical Systems The hierarchical system was highly politically centralized, often highly bureaucratic and/or militaristic (Khapoya, 1998). The leader, a king, paramount chief, or military commander, had subordinates, but their power was exercised only at the discretion of the leader. Again, Khapoya (1998) offers several examples: The Baganda people of the Buganda Kingdom in Uganda and the Fon people of Benin provide excellent examples of the hierarchical system. . . . [Buganda] was highly centralized with a strong bureaucracy and an extremely powerful king called a kabaka. Because the structure was so tight and centralized, Buganda was never really colonized by the British. Instead the British entered into a series of treaties and agreements that preserved the power of the king of the Buganda, who was coopted into the colonial administered structure under policy known as “indirect rule.” The kabaka was offered “protection” by the British; in exchange he allowed the British to pursue their imperial dreams in eastern Africa. (p. 63)

Khapoya (1998) further describes the hierarchical structure whereby a prime minister (katikkiro) and a parliament (Lukiiko) assisted the kabaka. Although risky due to jealousy among the princes, the kabaka was powerful enough to ignore the views of the katikkiro and Lukiiko. Rather than through succession, as seen in other monarchies, the kabaka became king through election from among a group of princes, eligible because their fathers or grandfathers had been kabakas. Finally, the kabaka’s mother and sisters were influential without formal power. Buganda was extremely hierarchically organized into counties, subcounties, and villages, each level headed by a king-appointed chief responsible to the chief of the next level. Although all-powerful, the king depended on the support of his subjects, which was not always certain. Because of this uncertainty, the king relied on the batongole, a group of men who supplied him with provisions. Many of the batongole served as village chiefs, incorporating them into the system as the primary link between the king and the people (Khapoya, 1998). Khapoya’s depiction of hierarchical systems provides clear insight into how such hierarchy functions in the African context. The traditional African hierarchy functions as a set of concentric circles, in contrast to the linear European hierarchical system, exemplified by Fayol’s classic organizational chart. In the traditional African hierarchical system, then, each chief exists in a position whereby he is surrounded by the power of those chiefs more powerful than he—as opposed to existing under their power as would be conceptualized in Eurocentric systems.

114

CHAPTER 3

Our data support many of these features of African hierarchy, and patterns in the data are explained more easily through understanding of this cultural feature. If organizational members have a cultural preference for such lateral or circular hierarchy, their strong resistance to the imposition of a vertical hierarchy is easily understood. Furthermore, in the face of such resistance, the problematic salience of leadership and management and of power, authority, and control is not at all surprising. Finally, the collectivist ethos inherent in a circular hierarchy sheds light upon the complex nature of organizational functioning in the divergent organization; if organizational members’ cultural foundation is uniquely tied to a collectivist ethos, deeply entrenched levels organizational divergence may result from the imposition of vertical hierarchy. This is addressed further later. In addition, the notion of lateral hierarchy is revisited in chapter 7. Pyramidal Systems A pyramidal system is similar to a segmental system in that it is comprised of segmental groups. These groups were not autonomous; they were arranged in levels and were usually based on kinship (Khapoya, 1998). “The levels of a Yoruba system are based on some sort of seniority; the chiefs of higher levels have the right to intervene in the affairs of the lower levels, if necessary. The chiefs of the lower levels are expected to show appropriate deference to those above” (p. 64). Often, a pyramidal system is characterized by conflict and shifting alliances among the different groups and levels. Khapoya (1998) cites the Yoruba of western Nigeria as an excellent example of the society with a pyramidal system. The Yoruba king had the assistance of a council of senior chiefs, whose executive decisions were given the king’s royal assent. There were three hierarchical grades of chiefs—mostly hereditary—who worked directly with the king. In Yoruba society, the king and his council were sovereign, maintaining law and order, settling disputes, and ensuring prosperity. People had some opportunity to express their opinions at meetings, but not often. The power of the chiefs was maintained by their control over such expressions by the people. Junior chiefs would pass such expressed views on to senior chiefs who would, in turn, share them with the king at their own discretion (Khapoya, 1998). The Yoruba kingdom, as an exemplar of a pyramidal system, consisted of several levels of chiefs, all subordinate to the king. “Yoruba kingdom’s, understandably, were dynamic systems characterized by alliances, conflicts, and rivalries among lineages and between the obas and chiefs as they struggled for power and influence” (Khapoya, 1998, p. 65). The pyramidal system, then, is a bit more similar to vertical Western notions of hierarchy. A key difference lies in the reliance on kinship and lin-

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RULES AND RESOURCES

115

eage systems. Most interesting to our purposes is the extent to which expression and communication with the people is seen as the most important entree for political power. We see this clearly in our data as communication and interpersonal dynamics arise as salient enough to be conceptualized in our model as a problematic (see chap. 2). Summary The preceding discussion provides an overview of political systems in traditional Africa. Our description of these organizational forms is that which existed prior to the colonization of Africa by European countries. Of course, both slavery and the colonization of Africa by Europeans had profound cultural impact on these traditional modes of organizing. The imposition of European imperialism manifests in the institution of slavery as experienced by Africans in the United States. The organizational life of the African in America, through the institution of slavery, occurs directly at the intersection of European and African cultural structures. In addition, recognition of the emotional reaction to subjugation is crucial to understanding the phenomenon of convergence, which is documented in chapter 4.

CONCLUSION African-American cultural structure is undeniably bound up in an inseparable intertwining of African and European cultural structures. Of interest here is the extent to which the social practices of African-American organizational membership create cultural divergence with its European-based organizational structure. Our data suggest that this phenomenon is indeed real; chapter 4 provides a discussion of specific divergences between the interpenetrating contradictory structures that create difficulties and dysfunctions for organizational members. By conceptualizing culture in the way that we have, as a repository of cultural rules and resources that are invoked in social practice, we can examine the interpenetration of these two cultural structures while avoiding the essentialism so common in research that compares cultures in any way. Interwoven with our documentation of divergence in our data in chapters 4 and 5, are examinations of theoretic and historical literatures that enrich our understanding of the phenomena. This literature includes treatments of slavery, African-American organizations, and African-American experiences in White organizations.

C H A P T E R

4 Interpenetration of Contradicting Structures: The Divergent Organization

THE CONTRADICTIONS In Fig. 3.1, the black triangle and white circle do not naturally blend to produce an evenly shaded gray triangle, but rather clash in a mottled gray shape that shows the lack of fit between the two cultural structures. Neither the institutional/corporate nor the ethnic/racial cultural structure is adequately reproduced. This is not to say that organizational life is always difficult in an organization with culturally incongruent organizational and social structures. However, there are particular difficulties that are unique to this organizational type. The lightning bolts on the mottled triangle/circle figure represent the movement of the process whereby structures are invoked into systems. The “difficult blend” depicted in Fig. 3.1 describes an organizational system where members are not often able to straightforwardly draw on rules and resources, translate them into social practices, and navigate the inevitable difficulties in their organizational lives. In fact, the difficult blend creates its own set of problems. An organization that is culturally incongruent such that the intrinsic social culture of its membership draws on a different cultural structure from which the organization has been designed cannot be expected to function smoothly because the interpenetrating structures are divergent, in addition to other contradictory structures that may coexist and within-culture variations of the ways in which structure is appropriated into social practice. Such contradictions are difficult for cultural members to manage, as the rules and resources are contradictory and at times unclear. We call this phenomenon the “divergent organization.” Our 116

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

117

analysis provides a structurational explanation for Warfield-Coppock’s (1995) description of the “enculturated organization,” which is addressed below. Following are organizational problems prominent in the main dataset and validated by the secondary dataset that can be traced to divergences in cultural rules and resources (Tables 1.1 and 3.2). The Conflicted Role of the Manager Contradictions between the rules and resources of European-American organizational structure and African-American cultural structure are eminently apparent in the case of one particular manager in the human service organization. This particular manager was praised over and again by her direct employees for her team-based management style, grounded in a philosophy of sharing the work in a communal effort. The resonating commentary of her employees reveals that this relational model of managing was readily and naturally accepted by this work group. Her staff praised her for her fairness and called her a “team player and team worker” (Interview 29). They said that she was “committed to improving conditions, and there for her employees, willing to roll up her sleeves and work” (Interview 28). They said that as her employees they felt “encouraged by her assistance” (Interview 28). In short, this communal management style was highly valued and seen as very positive by the employees. However, the opinion of her superiors was quite the opposite. This manager had been reprimanded for the very behaviors cited by her employees as being the most effective; she had been told by her superior that her leadership style was inappropriate because she did not know how to delegate. In this example, we can clearly see a clash between several rules and resources in the interpenetrating cultural structures (see Tables 1.1 and 3.2): most prominent are task vs. relational orientation; primacy of control vs. shared responsibility; primacy of hierarchy vs. primacy of unity; and efficiency of information vs. communalism. We see those at the top of the organizational hierarchy invoking a European-based cultural structure of work and those at the lower levels of hierarchy invoking an African-based cultural structure of work. It is interesting to note that there were no complaints from upper management about the quality or quantity of work accomplished in this department—merely the way in which the manager saw fit to facilitate the accomplishment of the work. Upper management was greatly disturbed by this manager’s seeming inability (from their point of view) to play the appropriate cultural role of “manager.” In a traditional European-based organizational structure, “managers” do not do actual hands-on work themselves; they assign others to do that work. In this manager’s AfricanAmerican-centered work style, she was focusing her management on her relationships with her employees, sharing responsibility with them rather

118

CHAPTER 4

than controlling them, concentrating on unity and commitment rather than hierarchical roles, and working in a communal role rather than as an efficient collector and disseminator of task information. The fact that upper management saw fit to reprimand her for her style alone, without any connection to the quantity or quality of the work itself, indicates a contradiction between the rules and resources that should be drawn upon and enacted in social practice in the process of conducting the work. Here, we see upper management exerting concertive control over this manager’s process, regardless of her department’s product. It is important to note that throughout the data, both European- and African-based rules/resources are invoked at all levels of the hierarchy. The phenomenon of divergence is far more complex than a simple “manager/employee divide.” In light of events like this, the copious complaints among employees about what was seen as an oppressive hierarchical structure, such as “[the] hierarchical system of operating is hurting other people; it is antiquated and ineffective” (Interview 11), are more meaningful. As the contradiction of interpenetrating structures manifests in difficulties such as the one cited earlier, members of upper management “turn the screws” in an attempt to achieve control in response to what is they perceive as a lack (or loss) of control on their part—invoking Eurocentric rules/resources for management. Respondents repeatedly used the phrase “management by intimidation,” as well as complaining about being dehumanized, ignored, and belittled in the system. (This is further addressed later.) The more employees feel these attempts to make tasks more important than people, attempts to control them, enforcements of the hierarchy, and a focus on efficient information rather than communalism, the more the employees assert their African-American-centered cultural values of relationship, shared responsibility, unity, and communalism. Similar to Freeman, Littlejohn, and Pearce’s (1992; see also Littlejohn, 1995) theory of moral conflict, the two sides to this exchange are invoking separate and incompatible value systems in their negotiation of the relationship and of the organizational reality, and they are pulling toward different ends of the continual structures we identify in Tables 1.1 and 3.2—a difficult blend indeed. Overwhelmingly, employees at the human service organization value managers who are supportive, helpful, kind, caring, and knowledgeable. For example, The managers are very sweet; show concern when one has personal problems. (Interview 27) Good manager over [this] area, she works well with us. She listens, is very supportive, and follows through with complaints. (Interview 39) Manager shows interest, cares, and tries to get the proper tools to you to get the job done. (Interview 42)

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

119

. . . a very caring manager which makes it easier to come in to work, irrespective of bad conditions. (Interview 43) Good working relationship with manager who is able to assist with resolving problems. (Interview 44) Work very well with manager who is very supportive. (Interview 45) Manager is fair, dependable, and supportive; I trust her judgment. (Interview 47)

They complain, sometimes bitterly, about managers whose behavior is controlling, domineering, autocratic, and/or interpersonally distant: Need to build team approach with manager. Better communication with employees and consistency in demeanor. Need to treat employees with respect and be a team player. (Interview 20) Management only communicate when something goes wrong, employees are then chastised for the consequences. . . . [Need] improvement in attitude of management—being able to interact with employees on all levels (sharing with the janitor to their peers). (Interview 21) Overall people are not treated fairly and tired of being dogged out. . . . Senior management talks to employee in a roundabout way instead of directly addressing the issues and taking action to resolve. (Interview 22) Senior management [needs to] treat people with respect and dignity. (Interview 23) No administrative support when concerns are voiced. Manager’s approach is not always in a manner that is appropriate. When employee responds negatively, they are reprimanded. Employees are daily interrupted from routine projects spontaneously and are given other directions without being asked in advance. (Interview 25) Managers with power and control over you don’t know how to treat people lovingly. (Interview 33)

At the school, organizational members who praise one (or both) of their two “managers” (in-building administrators) reference a very similar set of characteristics: [Strength:] Supportive administration. (Interview 60) [I get a] sense of caring and support [from administrator’s weekly meetings]. (Interview 72) [Administrator] intimately knows what’s up. Genuinely cares. . . . Makes presence known. I am appreciated, someone cares about me. (Interview 96) [Administrator] is very much “in the know” and bring in possibilities even though they may not reach the children (e.g., resources). (Interview 79) [Administrator is] friendly and helpful. (Interview 117)

120

CHAPTER 4

And those who complain about one or both of their “managers” also reference a set of characteristics that is very similar to complaints about management at the human service organization: [Need] new leadership policy—too many followers and too many spies. (Interview 48) [Need to improve] the interpersonal relationships . . . in leadership as the [administrator]. For example, always called “the [school name] family” but not treated as family. (Interview 50) Administration sharpen people skills. Dealing with teachers—pay is important!! (Run into problems, like [s/he] don’t care about the issue). (Interview 65) [Administrator] should be more visible. (Interview 68) The [administrator] sets the tone. Needs to release/relinquish some . . . control. (Interview 80)

Accountability and Authority in Middle Management. At the core of this maelstrom of divergent values at the human service organization surrounding power, authority, and control is, of course, middle management. Middle managers at the organization do not occupy a comfortable position. Throughout our data, middle managers lament that senior management holds them accountable for outcomes, but does not provide them with the authority, control, or resources needed to accomplish their tasks. Decisions what to buy does not come through [department] manager, who really knows the priority of needs, but is not given the respect to do so. (Interview 5) [Manager name] has the skill to move things, but don’t have the authority or power to accomplish this. He deals with unnecessary daily mess instead of what his abilities call for. . . . [Two executives named] are the only ones that have power. (Interview 6) No clear lines of authority—senior management change policies at the drop of a hat to accommodate irregular requests . . . and do not support the decision of line supervisor. . . . Senior management don’t treat line supervisors with respect; accountability is compromised when trying to follow rules and policies and being chastised for upholding them. (Interview 10) Supervisor for [department name] is not given any authority to make decisions; nitpicking of managers is intolerable and immobilizes them to do a good job and gain respect from their employees. . . . Almost had to shut down the department because of lack of equipment for basic [tasks]— manager’s requests are not addressed with respect and are often invalidated. . . . Disrespect for manager’s area of expertise by executive managers is frustrating. Sometimes it’s pointless being a manager when one

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

121

is paralyzed to function. . . . Need to set boundaries concerning managers’ authority and decision making. . . . Make it possible for managers to participate in the development process and respect their decisions/judgments. (Interview 11) Manager feels paralyzed to make decisions with no support and/or reprimand re: standard policy and procedures. Inconsistency in administration’s response based on evaluation of complaints from [specific type] staff; manager’s decision is overridden. Trying to comply to [external agency] standards are disrespected by [specific type] staff, and [department] manager is perceived as a nonteam player; [some staff’s] attitude to take matters in their own hands disrespects authority of department manager and makes it worse for the common good of the [organization]. (Interview 12) Don’t allow the managers to carry out their task—senior management don’t seem to trust managers to do a good job—don’t trust leadership—feel they are incompetent. . . . Manager’s sound judgment and expertise are openly disrespected by these types of decisions, and for better or for worse, the managers still have to carry out the task, and it creates a problem for their integrity. [Executive manager] then feels [s/he] can overrule decisions because of prolonged background and function in [organization’s] administration—this is disrespectful. . . . [Need] More respect and empowerment from senior management. Senior management has to change autocratic leadership style of functioning. (Interview 13) Managers run department very frugally and yet they are disrespected and not given any administrative support. (Interview 14) “How can I have the responsibility and not the authority?” Managers have no authority to fix/solve problems; things are thrust upon them and they are expected to carry it out no question asked. The managers are in the throes of day-to-day problems, yet input is not respected to provide the solution for the problem, but when the problem reaches crisis proportion the managers are blamed. (This leads to frustrations and conflict/ tension in the division). [Some staff] don’t have a clear-cut understanding of the internal problems of vital departments; they expect the [basic equipment] to work or that we should have certain supplies [but we don’t] because we are credit hold ([they] bawl out employees for these deficiencies). [Some staff] become angry at the managers for these deficiencies instead of addressing administration for these problems. Internal lethargy/apathy is very apparent in unit managers. . . . Many managers are hard-working but they lack the resources and equipment to do an adequate job. Managers’ decisions are not valued or supported but are many times overturned by [executive manager of area]; they get no respect (e.g., [manager’s] suspension of [employee] was overturned by [executive manager]). . . . Managers try to supply short-staffed division and therefore cannot always complete administrative forms on a timely basis and are reprimanded by senior management. Who holds the board accountable? The community? Or the employees? (Interview 15)

122

CHAPTER 4

Senior management need to support [department] manager/supervisor and communicate more, particularly around disciplining of employees. (Interview 18)

A few members of senior management also observe the phenomenon: Duties can’t be accomplished with limited resources, yet manager is expected to carry them out effectively and are held responsible for them. . . . Decisions made by [executive managers], irregardless if it affects his/her area or not; manager is then brought in, after the fact, with limited/selected information, and oftentimes have responsibility to oversee decision. (Interview 1) Almost every manager is disempowered and only “acting” directors in their role—just figureheads . . . no respect for what they bring to the table. (Interview 4)

Finally, a few regular employees have observed middle management’s dilemma, and its result, as well. Manager has to get approval for everything, just a middle person with no power. (Interview 33) Need more support from senior management, which would empower us to do more. (Interview 44) In the 24 years that I have worked here, this year seems to be the worst— backstabbing among managers and they do some very nasty things to the employees. (Interview 45)

Executive Team Process. In the structure and process of the executive team at the human service organization, we see clear divergences between Eurocentric cultural values and Afrocentric cultural values. The process of the executive team can be seen as culturally conflicted. One executive team member described this conflictedness (what we call divergence) quite clearly: [Critical Issue:] Independence vs. interdependence on the executive team— very dysfunctional. Rotation of leadership on executive team is very individualistic and fragmented; don’t reflect a team effort or sense of value to make a process happen. We function autocratically (“line authority”) to make things happen, yet accountability is shared. (Interview 4)

Specifically, we see divergences in the following rules/resources: selfreliance vs. interdependence; individualism vs. collectivism; value of authority vs. value of experience; linearity vs. circularity; primacy of control vs.shared responsibility; primacy of hierarchy vs. primacy of unity; and objectivity vs.

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

123

intersubjectivity. Members of the executive team seem to be invoking the rules and resources of both cultural systems. Uses and Abuses of Power Power, and the ways in which it is used and abused, is (as described in chap. 2) a prominent theme running through our data. Several different kinds of power abuse seem to arise from the divergences described earlier between task and relational orientation; control and shared responsibility; hierarchy and unity; efficient information and communalism; self-reliance and interdependence; individualism and collectivism; authority and experience; linearity and circularity; objectivity and intersubjectivity. In addition, we see a divergence between the Eurocentric rule/resource of dichotomous logic and the Afrocentric rule/resource of continuous logic. Those at the executive level appear to enforce a communicative schism, a great divide, between management and employee. Employees who invoke rules/resources of the Afrocentric cultural structure, grounded in such values as collectivism, communalism, common good, and holism, appear to view organizational membership as less categorical and more fluid and circular—rather than viewing “management” and “employee” as rigid dichotomous categories arrayed linearly. They seek to span the communicative gap at the same time that their counterparts in senior management seek to enforce it. Employees seem to prefer a more continuous logic that allows for the very dissemination of power that management seems to resist. They overtly state their desire for empowerment at both the human service organization and the school: System is sick and needs healing, restructuring, and empowerment. (Interview 1) We don’t need consultants to tell employees what to do; employees already have it in them to make a difference. (Interview 7) Need more empowerment, structure and consistency. (Interview 37) [Recommendation:] Learn how to share power comfortably. (Interview 58) Disseminate the power . . . (Interview 65)

At both organizations, interviewees protest oppressive micromanagement, whim-based and/or crisis-based management; criticize managerial spending and waste; condemn managers’ intimidation tactics; and complain of favoritism. Communication of the feedback essential for employee understanding of organizational processes is missing. These perceptions of abuses of power are very likely manifestations of the interpenetration of incompatible structures. The simultaneous invoking into the same situation of divergent rules/resources for social practice results in dysfunctional interaction that does not satisfactorily reproduce either of the interpenetrat-

124

CHAPTER 4

ing structures. Problems and conflict remain and are deepened, and in response, individuals repeatedly invoke the rules/resources in their repertoire of culturally based problem-solving skills—thus deepening the cultural divide and magnifying the problem. For example, the more managers seek to exert control, the more employees exert their value of shared responsibility, which in turn leads management to exert more concertive control that workers respond to with even more resistance, and so on, ad infinitum. The more managers seek to dichotomize the powerful from the powerless, the more employees exert their value of continuity and demand equitable dissemination of power; this in turn leads management to exert their power more forcefully, whereupon workers respond with more resentment and demands for empowerment, and so on. This process repeats itself for each of the interpenetrating divergent rules/resources. Micromanagement, Management by Whim, Management by Crisis. The concertive control exerted by the human service organization’s management is particularly apparent in organizational members’ complaints of micromanagement, seemingly arbitrary managerial decisions, and managerial inaction in the absence of crisis (at which time management action is perceived as oppressively controlling). First, we provide excerpts from both data sets supplying evidence for the occurrence of micromanagement: [We found] out about space relocation through a maintenance worker showing up to measure; information concerning relocation was not conveyed by [senior] manager to department. (Interview 5) The day-to-day activities of a department should not be the concern of [an executive manager]—the big picture should be to generate revenue for the [organization’s] goals and objectives. (Interview 12) Senior management [should] stop meddling with department’s affairs. (Interview 15) Don’t understand why [executive manager] has hands in every area and why [department] problems/concerns are reported directly to [executive manager] instead of VP [division]. (This directive was given 2 months ago.) (Interview 45) Change micro-management—everything must be approved of by [administrator] with line of approval. (Interview 50) Administration have hands in too many things. [Need to] give opportunity, pass the power, let others make decisions. Give teachers more freedom, let them breathe without permission. (Interview 65)

Employees of the human service organization also complain about seemingly arbitrary managerial decisions. They feel rather batted about by the whims of management:

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

125

Triggering events are the cause of policy and role changes overnight and arbitrarily executed. (Interview 4) [Organization] not run like a business, buy what we want—no purchasing procedures in place; when in a financial crisis can only buy what you need. . . . Result of mismanagement has caught up with every area of the [organization]: deterioration, low morale, policies and procedures are not in place. . . . Internal control procedures necessary—spending is individually decided. (Interview 5) . . . senior management change policies at the drop of a hat to accommodate irregular requests . . . (Interview 10) We expect people to work with no merit increase and no scheduled plan for action, and to respond at the drop of a hat. (Interview 15) [Need] better communication regarding policies and procedures. Deviations are made from established procedures according to [external agency]; arbitrary decisions are made outside of rules. . . . No standards in meting out procedures. (Interview 20) Unclear and undocumented policies of disciplinary actions are arbitrarily decided. Dishonesty in communication—multiple contradictions and manipulation by senior management team (employees are promised one thing and something totally different is done. It’s disheartening). Petty things are focused on instead of the real issues. (Interview 23) . . . inconsistency in implementation of policy and procedures. (Interview 33) Inconsistency in job structure—guidelines change and adjustments made to fit people’s schedule or administration’s desires at a moment’s notice. . . . [Management has] selfish timing (do what I need to have done, because I need it now). (Interview 37)

Persons in positions of leadership in the human service organization are also perceived by employees to operate in a mode of crisis-based management. Management [has] no long-term vision—operate under crisis management. (Interview 5) Interim director for 18 months feeds senior management dysfunctions in crisis management without follow-through. (Interview 12) No support from VP [division]—only communicate when something goes wrong. (Interview 13) Administration busy with crisis management, we tend to be reactive instead of proactive (Band-Aid short-term problems, fix for the minute, then when it don’t work we just move onto the next problem instead of reviewing the original problem to find solutions). . . . Submitted requests to senior management is not addressed only when things get out of hand. . . . The managers are in the throes of day-to-day problems, yet in-

126

CHAPTER 4

put is not respected to provide the solution for the problem, but when the problem reaches crisis proportion the managers are blamed. (Interview 15) We don’t see executive team unless something goes wrong. (Interview 28)

Managerial Spending/Waste. In addition, interviewees from the human service organization complain, sometimes quite indignantly, about wasteful practices of management, especially in light of severely restricted resources that impact their daily functioning. Here, the schism between the “haves” at the top of the organization and the “have-nots” at the bottom of the organization is thrown into sharp relief. Employees—who contend daily with shortages of basic supplies (let alone current computer technology) and who struggle to adequately perform their jobs without sufficient resources—bear witness to what they perceive as the excesses of management. [Management needs to be] less extravagant in other areas to bring some equity to others with inadequate resources (cell phones for senior managers vs. computer in [this department]). (Interview 14) [Should provide] better [customer] services vs. buying furniture for management. . . . Money spent on frivolous items instead of improving employee morale. . . . [Need] upgrading of antiquated equipment instead of spending money in seemingly unwarranted areas. (Interview 22) Waste of money: Money not used for the [organization], but it is walking out the door. No [basic equipment], however, money spent for new timeclocks (not used)—still use old-time clock. (Interview 34) Senior management needs to cut back on calling each other on their cell phones inside the [building]. . . . Curtailing extreme waste. (Interview 47)

Top-Heavy Management. It is striking to note that in light of the human service organization employees’ perception of senior management as overly controlling, they also complain that the organizational hierarchy is top heavy. It is also interesting to note that, although severe cutbacks had been made to the staff, no such cutbacks were made at the senior management level. Several interviewees call for a reduction in the size of senior management. For example: Streamline top-heavy administration—free up top-heavy salaries. (Interview 5) Need to downsize the administration—institution is top heavy with managers. (We have more administrators than [clients] sometimes). (Interview 33) Cut back on managerial staff—there is too many from the top to the bottom. (Interview 45)

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

127

At-Will Firing, Management by Intimidation, and the “Hit List”. By far the most pervasive complaint about management in both organizations is the extent to which employees feel silenced for fear of severe repercussions. This is much more pronounced at the human service organization (which is, of course, in a much more unhealthy state than the school). At the human service organization, interviewees use the phrases “management by intimidation” and “at-will firing” quite frequently; they also speak repeatedly of a “hit list” reserved for those who speak out, and many view upper management as dysfunctionally paranoid and driven by ego. We find this to be clearly indicative of cultural divergences that have led to severely dysfunctional managerial attempts to control, preserve the hierarchy, and enforce authority: When one speaks out you’re being set up to be fired. . . . People’s perception: Management operates and is guided by fear and paranoia—“firing at will” seems to be the motto. . . . Any complaint becomes an indictment and as a result you get beat up. (Interview 1) People are afraid of vision of the future, cannot articulate vision for [organization] when management is insecure, egotistical, and dysfunctional. . . . Questioning is not appreciated or welcomed, brings about tensions and raises up defense mechanisms on management team which are counterproductive. (Interview 4) Managers are divided, don’t communicate, caught in a cycle of undermining one another; very dysfunctional. (Interview 5) [In this department] we can express ourselves without receiving backlash— we feel protected. (Interview 6) Have never seen employees treated so unjustly—unlike any other institution. . . . Afraid to rally around communication enhancement team because of unofficial “firing at will.” . . . Employee already limited with inadequate resources, to be beaten down in addition to this, creates low self-esteem, affects employees dignity and morale. (Interview 7) Threatening attitude in dealing with critical situation or relaying calls. Employee is told: “do you want your job?” If task is not done with sense of urgency, employees threatened with job loss. (Interview 20) Weak executive team: perceived to be double minded, don’t stand by their decision—portray a weak foundation. (Interview 21) “Firing at will” for speaking out—feel like [organization] operate on a slave mentality “do as I say to do or else.” . . . Management doing vindictive things to employees because of personality vs. rewarding for performance. Seemingly “good” and “strong” people are preyed upon and ultimately dismissed. (Interview 22) Ego needs are so strong re: power, control, and authority that the actual needs and work of employees become subservient to one’s ego. (Interview 23)

128

CHAPTER 4

“Firing at will” has produced feelings of fear and anxiety. . . . Time off is not honored, irrespective if form is submitted ahead of time, and one is outright disrespected if they voice their opinion. . . . Treated as subordinate or object in an oppressive manner. . . . If you speak out you are seen as uncooperative and/or insubordinate. . . . You’re placed on hit list . . . (Interview 33) You’re placed on a “hit list” if you speak out. (Interview 34) “People feel they can’t express their opinion without their head being a chopping block.” . . . Fearful communication is strong, because of at-will firing—thus perception becomes managing by intimidation. (Interview 40) Threatening of employees by management through intimidation just allow [organization] to go into a deeper hole. (Interview 47)

At the school, employees are splintered into two groups, those who praise the building’s administration and those who disparage them. Clearly, the school is factionalized in this way. Although we do not have sufficient data to explore the factionalized nature of this organization, it is interesting to note that those who criticize their “manager(s)” do so in strikingly similar ways to the human service organization employees: I am not saying anything. I am protecting myself. (Interview 49) Can’t communicate honestly with [administrator] must be real careful how you say things. . . . Repercussions if you leave a meeting. (Interview 50) [I feel] threatened. (Interview 92) Sometimes administration not approachable, people intimidated. . . . Fearful of consequences—reticence is due to repercussions. (Interview 95) You feel things are held against you if you speak. (Interview 110) Penalty for leaving [early from a late-running (past 5:00pm) meeting for another commitment]. Cold shoulder, be seen in rating disapprovals. (Interview 118)

Favoritism. Closely paired with perceptions of management as intimidating, paranoid, and driven by ego are perceptions of favoritism. In both organizations, employees reference managerial favoritism as a major source of organizational discord. For example, employees at the human service organization said the following: Employees are very distrustful of managers because of history of showing favoritism and ignoring others who were similarly talented. (Interview 16) [This is a comment from a middle manager, explaining a perception of distrust among employees for management.]

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

129

Worked with [senior manager] to recommend improvements in work assignments by geographic location and skill, to reduce favoritism. (Interview 18) [This is a comment from a middle manager, explaining what she had done to try to combat the problem.] Manager don’t control the scheduling of [employees] (no control) has to wait on a [senior manager] who schedules based on favoritism. (Interview 33) [Regular employee, commenting on manager quoted from Interview 18.]

Employees at the school echo complaints of favoritism: Leadership [is] unfair, not honest, misleading, encourages gossip. . . . [The problem is] Favoritism. (Interview 65) “Clique-ish”—[administrator] has favorites. Not equal, e.g., approving programs! Gender issues. Allows men to do what they want. Women have to struggle. (Interview 78) A lot of favoritism—on the part of the [administrator]—a lot of pettiness. (Interview 80) [I] can’t leave early, others can. (Interview 92) Not fair. [I want to] have some input; [I am] told to be here, whether to come or not. [I] reject that dictatorship. Input. [Administrator] characteristic [is] “do as I say.” Administration, some teachers have input; some told and get to agree. (Interview 118)

Communication, Relationships, and Socialization A great deal of commentary, of course, centers around issues related to communication. Interviewees for both organizations constantly reference communication—its existence, form, content, and quality. Cultural divergences related to communication range widely. They include the form in which requirements for management are communicated, the nature of gossip and rumors, employee demands for respect, and the need for new employee orientation programs. Divergence in the Communication of Requirements. At the human service organization, as described earlier, managers can be seen to be invoking both Afrocentric and Eurocentric approaches. One example of such divergence is that between the spoken and written word. Management, of course, demands things from employees; when these demands are seen as oppressive, employees sometimes criticize the lack of written code for said requirements. Employees are thus in an interesting discursive position; on the one hand they often sharply criticize managers for behaviors that reveal Eurocentric values (as seen before), on the other hand, employees call into question instances where management is divergent from them. What is

130

CHAPTER 4

revealed here is that the primarily important issue is how rules/regulations are enforced, validating both spoken and written word as appropriate and emphasizing the need for consistency between them. This is most apparent in cases where employees criticize management for lack of written documentation. For example, [Critical issue for improvement:] No written job description—tasks are verbally given. (Interview 37)

At both organizations, the construct of a dress code is mentioned. At the human service organization, one manager stated explicitly that employees should . . . dress appropriately, reflect appropriate behavior and follow department procedures. (Interview 18)

The organization has no formalized, written dress code. Still, in another department, a regular employee stated, Managers often intimidate us employees by wanting to suspend employees who they feel may not dress appropriately. (Interview 40)

And at the school, one teacher complained that an employee could Get banished for wearing jeans but there is no dress code. (Interview 78)

Whereas, another teacher insisted that what was needed was a Dress code for teachers. (Interview 85)

We see here a great deal of comfort with the written, formalized code for organizational rules and a great discomfort with rules managerially enforced in the absence of such written regulation. For example, another school employee identified as a particular challenge, the existence of Unwritten rules—frustrating. (Interview 92)

It is interesting that the employee reaction validates the Eurocentric notion of written regulations. Like the harmonious blend of task and relationship orientations discussed previously, this is evidence of the potential for the “bending” of these Eurocentric–Afrocentric continua into less linear structures that strike a harmonious balance between the two cultural sets of

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

131

rules/resources and eliminate (or at least minimize) dysfunctional cultural divergences. This theoretic notion is addressed in chapter 7. Gossip and Rumors. In the face of the anxiety produced by organizational uncertainty, increases in gossip and rumors are to be expected (Difonzo & Bordia, 1994; Jaeger, Anthony, & Rosnow, 1980; Rosnow, Esposito, & Gibney, 1988; Walker & Beckerle, 1987). The human service organization in our study seems to be no exception. Managers and employees alike complain about gossip and rumors, desire to control them, and see their consequences as negative for both task and relational outcomes. For example, Manager can’t control rumor mill when you don’t know what the truth is. (Interview 15) When problems arise, [employees] should talk directly to supervisor in charge vs. spreading rumors and building tension in department. (Interview 18) Talking negatively/idle gossip are not necessarily true and often prevents others from getting work done. (Interview 27) I like working here, the majority of the people you can get along with, irrespective of rumors floating around. . . . Attitudes are being fed by rumor mill, it will take everyone to make this place work, but it has to be made better. (Interview 40)

It is interesting to note that management knows specific detail of rumors propagated in employee gossip: Employees think that executive group is working to close the [organization]. (Interview 5) Most employees feel there is a strategic plan afoot to close down the [organization], then [a larger organization] come in and reopen, accepting of [specific type of] contracts that [this organization] can’t handle. (Interview 15)

Yet, there has been no formal announcement or information-sharing with employees, as is often recommended (e.g., Difonzo & Bordia, 1994) to quell this natural tendency to “fill in” an information vacuum with a proliferation of rumors. Senior management (the executive level) made no comment about employee gossip or rumors. We believe this shows a certain objectification (divergence from humanism) of employees, diminishing the importance of their communication and their right/need to be informed. This conspicuous absence of communication in the face of employee rumoring may also be an indication of senior management invoking dualism

132

CHAPTER 4

and dichotomous logic (divergent from holism and continuous logic, respectively)—dividing themselves as executives into a category rigidly separate from middle management and regular employees. In any case, senior management’s lack of response to intense gossip and rumors is indicative of the extent to which the health of this organization suffers. At the school, there is also some concern about the negative consequences of gossip and rumors (Interviews 65 and 92). This concern was specifically referenced in terms of an inability of the interviewees speaking to trust their administration. They felt confidentiality was compromised, particularly by administration, in their organization. Lack of Orientation Programs. Another problem that surfaces in both organizations is the lack of orientation programs for new employees. At the human service organization, as with all the other problems, this is much more intense. Very little attention is paid to helping newcomers become acquainted with policies, procedures, and the general workings of the organizational system. For example, employees made the following commentary: [Need a] better system of orientation for newly hired. Results: benefits packages fall through the cracks and many things are not signed up for. (Interview 1) Orientation necessary, from one central location, ideally, beginning from [specific division]. Need strong [specific division] to provide support: e.g., processing place to make complaints, explain benefits etc. (Interview 20) Timely orientation should be provided: mechanisms, procedures and structure has to be in place; most employees come in and hit the floor. (Interview 29) Provide orientation to the employees. There should be collaboration with [appropriate department] and [department in question] and define orientation requirements for each area. (Interview 30) New person needs proper orientation: how [department] is run, where to find things, proper guidelines, where supplies are. . . . Provide orientation and pre-employment physical prior to employment beginning. (Interview 31) Employee orientation given 2 months after hired, yet expected to function efficiently, didn’t receive employee ID badge until 2 weeks after employed. Employee now employed 2 months and yet to receive ID. . . . Need employee orientation at the beginning of the position. (Interview 37) Orientation should be unit specific and include a tour of [building] or map of infrastructure. I was hired to work in [specific department] and did not know where the [specific] department is; I feel very uncomfortable, not knowing where supplies are etc. . . . This slows down functioning of [employees]. (Interview 46)

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

133

Employees at the school also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of a comprehensive orientation program for new employees. [Need] orientation for new staff. . . . [Critical issue/problem:] [School] district orientation—lax in notification. September 23rd meetings. Nov. 16th arrival. (Interview 51) Tour [of building given by administrator] as orientation. Not helpful. (Interview 96)

Somewhere between Eurocentric rules/resources (most notably those of task, economic motivation, control, hierarchy, authority, dichotomy, productivity, information, monosynchronic timeliness, and linearity) and Afrocentric rules/resources (respectively, those of relationship, community, shared responsibility, unity, experience, continuity, excellence, communalism, polysynchronic timeliness, and circularity) the basic needs of organizational newcomers become lost. Leaving newcomers to their own devices to figure out how the system works and how to get around is a social practice that reproduces neither of the interpenetrating cultural structures. Thorough and comprehensive new-employee orientation is an important part of organizational socialization, but in these two organizations even the most basic orientation procedures are not in place. In the “beehive of Black organizations” (Interview 116), new workers seem to live by a Darwinian code: You figure it out yourself, or you don’t survive. However, as noted in chapter 5, simply keeping the doors open is often a struggle in the face of discriminatory practices experienced in interaction with dominant-culture institutions in the organization’s environment. Simple practices such as orientation programs often pay the price for energies needed elsewhere. The Demand for Respect. We have discussed previously the extent to which employees of both organizations cry out to be recognized and appreciated. We interpret this as invoking the cultural rule/resource of humanism—a focus on unique talents and gifts of each individual who contributes to the organization and the importance of recognition of that contribution (divergent from objectification). Most significant within this cry for recognition and appreciation, the concept of respect, and the deplorable nature of a lack of respect, is echoed over and again. Employees of both organizations demand respect from themselves, each other, and their employers. Following are just a few examples from the many that appear in our primary data set. [Executive manager] openly disrespectful to employees in board meetings. (Interview 6)

134

CHAPTER 4

Respect is a major issue. . . . Behaviors must change—ways of doing and being if [organization] is going to survive. We have a responsibility to be competent, respectful and accountable to the people of this community. Too much disrespect for employees, [clients] and institution. [Specific type staff] who disrespect [employees] with uncomplimentary names— don’t respect who they are. . . . High turnover of [employees] due to economics. Some make staff feel worthless and speak with disrespect. Need to encourage more self-respect. (Interview 9) Senior management don’t treat line supervisors with respect. (Interview 10) Improve managerial interaction and give respect to department managers at meetings. . . . Make it possible for managers to participate in the development process and respect their decisions/judgments. (Interview 11) [Need] more respect and empowerment from senior management. (Interview 13) [Executive manager] should not be managing people—don’t show no compassion or respect for people’s welfare and disrespects managers totally—it’s depressing, oppressive, and dehumanizing. (Interview 14) Need to treat employees with respect and be a team player. (Interview 21) Treat people with respect and dignity. (Interview 22) People are not treated with respect. Informal chain of command is a breeding place for disrespect. . . . Senior management [needs to] treat people with respect and dignity. (Interview 23) Senior management show more respect and appreciation for employees’ talents and abilities. (Interview 25) [This department] don’t get the respect they are supposed to. (Interview 37)

We see the same at the school. For example, [Problem:] Treating people to way you want to be treated. Respect. (Interview 65) Teachers don’t feel appreciated or respected. (Interview 80)

Compensation Issues The lack of compensation is also a chief complaint at both organizations. Employees do not feel they are paid well. In addition to feeling underpaid, with no raises or increases of any kind forthcoming, employees identify pay inequities and parity issues across the board. Performance appraisals are simply not performed in several divisions of the human service organization. Although the policy remains in place to conduct them, middle managers do not uniformly or regularly comply—the practice having been dropped by many middle managers when a cost-cutting policy eliminating regular merit increases went into effect (Interview 1).

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

135

Appropriate Salary/Compensation and Raises. At the human service organization, numerous employees identify a need for pay increases to bring them to appropriate levels of compensation, citing a lack of fair and equitable salary/wage increases over time. Some even refer to unfulfilled managerial promises in this regard. Salary/compensation inequities with . . . staff—no raises given for work performed in years. (Interview 10) Employees who have been here for years don’t receive regular merit increases for work. (Interview 11) Can’t seem to get raises for present staff—it is an upward struggle. (Interview 14) Need to improve compensation—some have not had a raise in 6 to 7 years. (Interview 18) No raises 7 years and no justice brought or explanation given for this inequity. (Interview 22) [Need] salary increases. (Interview 28) No raise in 6 years—no rewards, no incentives. (Interview 32) No merit increase for increased workload and harassment. (Interview 43) Personal morale is very low in both departments; administration keeps promising us raises that are never forthcoming. (Interview 45) Unable to get raises as dedicated and hard-working people who care about [the organization]. (Interview 47)

At the school, employees report working 2 to 3 months into the school year without being paid (Interview 95; it is interesting to note that this is reported in a positive light, reflecting upon teacher dedication to the children). They also report a need for pay increases (Interviews 85, 88, 89, 101) and complain about the small size of increases that do occur (Interview 94). Finally, they are particularly indignant about an administrative tactic of reducing workforce size, then re-hiring former employees at salaries lower than those in their previous contract (Interview 67), a tactic used by the human service organization administrators as well (Interview 10). Inequity–Parity Issues. By far the most damaging compensation issue raised by interviewees at the human service organization is the existence of inequity issues. Numerous respondents report a perceived unfairness and unevenness in the comparison of pay/compensation and assignment/promotion across the organization. Arrangement of “irregular” pay structures with no basis. (Interview 1)

136

CHAPTER 4

Employee morale is down because of inequities—unresolved problems continue brewing for years, re: salary inequities with newly hired. (Interview 7) New employees coming in at higher salary vs. those who are working there for many years and are not evaluated for merit increases (this inequity causes conflict). (Interview 22) Catering to one set of people (e.g. Whites and Filipinos): parity issues, economics of racism in compensation. Do not recognize seniority (administration overtime). . . . Inequities in scheduling and divisions of labor . . . Improve morale and productivity. All [employees] must be treated fairly and paid equitably (for competence and years of experience), especially those who are faithful in tenure. (Interview 32) Need to boost morale of the people of [the organization] particularly those areas with parity issues (inequities in compensation); adjustment should be made. . . . Administration bringing in new cadre of people (Filipinos and Whites) in key positions, and they are elevated and promoted; Blacks seemingly remain in their same old positions. (Interview 33) Bring equity to parity issues re: compensation by department. (Interview 47)

The lack of fairness and equity in compensation is one of the harsh realities that newcomers to the human service organization are left to figure out on their own. In the context of all the preceding discussion in this chapter, it takes very little imagination to predict the reality shock in store for this unsuspecting newcomer: [I] have not been evaluated yet after 90 days [of employment]. [I am] hoping for a raise. (Interview 36)

Lack of Benefits. Many employees of the human service organization also report a poor-quality benefits package. Poor retirement/pension benefits in particular is clear indication of a divergence between the Afrocentric rule/resource of the value of age and the Eurocentric rule/resource of the value of youth. This is also indication of a divergence between the Afrocentric rule/resource of inductivism and the Eurocentric rule/resource of reductionism. Undoubtedly, reduction in benefits has improved the organization’s bottom line. Just as undoubtedly, it ignores the bigger picture of employee well-being and long-term organizational health. It also invalidates a “big picture” understanding of the organization grounded in the Afrocentric rules/resources of community, unity, humanism, collectivism, interdependence, common good, communalism, intersubjectivity, and holism. Other divergences that can be noted here are those between profit and community, authority and experience, objectification and humanism, individualism and collectivism, and self-reliance and interdependence. Following are examples of interviewee commentary:

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

137

Benefits are not good. (Interview 18) [Strength:] Those people who are committed to the [organization] irrespective they won’t benefit in the future (no retirement benefits). (Interview 23) [Critical issue:] Compensation and benefits. (Interview 28) Improvements in the structure of this Black institution: benefits are inadequate, pay is no good, no retirement plans—nothing to look forward to. (Interview 32) We continue to be committed, dedicated, and dependable—even without retirement benefits, but it’s getting tougher to work here. . . . Age discrimination is prevalent. . . . “bounced out of [organization] after they are used up.” (Interview 33) No benefits; working for 30 years, and retiring with no benefits. (Interview 34) Too much stress and frustration has led me to the decision to leave [person employed 24 years at organization]. I’m quitting because one cannot retire [with benefits]. . . . Many good employees have left because of no adequate benefits. (Interview 45)

We do not see similar complaints at the school, most probably due to the fact that as public education employees (even without a union) teachers’ and staff members’ benefits packages are mandated governmentally. Fragmentation A striking feature of the human service organization is the extent to which the functioning of divisions is fragmented. Senior management, in the interest of preserving its power, has balkanized the organization, each division and department functioning in relative isolation from others and competing for scarce resources. Communication is, of course, at the heart of this problem. By maintaining such tight control over information and authority, senior management has succeeded only in dividing the organization against itself, functionally and relationally. Its proverbial left hand and right hand are uninformed of each other’s actions and activities. This is a clear divergence between the Eurocentric rule/resource competition and the Afrocentric rule/resource common good. Social practices have emerged that support neither cultural structure. The competition that exists in the organization is unhealthy in both form and function. Rather than competing in ways that enhance the overall attainment of organizational goals (as competition functions in a monolithic Eurocentric organization), members of the human service organization compete among themselves in ways that are destructive to the overall attainment of organizational goals. This unhealthy competition manifests in such things as poor workflow, interdepart-

138

CHAPTER 4

mental conflicts and power struggles, redundancy and duplication of efforts, and a rather interesting paradoxical problem in which business is down and yet when business comes in the physical space required to conduct it is unavailable. Poor Workflow. Several interviewees cite examples of fragmentation in the organizational system, poor communication of information throughout the organization, and of great difficulty in workflow, particularly between departments. No proper Internal Control System in place between departments: related to hiring, payroll and [human resource functions]. (Interview 1) Workflow must be improved from the time requests . . . are made by [staff] until a client is [served] (delay could be [several] hours). (Interview 12) Management’s disorganization causes more stress in department for workers. (Interview 25) Very seldom interface with other departments, but we need adequate equipment and supplies to do work well. . . . No communication at [this organization]—people expect you to know certain things without communicating their desire. (Interview 26) Loosely organized communication system—don’t know what is expected of you. Work staff fragmented, if not properly oriented adds to the dysfunction. . . . Clarifying processes of operation: establishing orientation and proper guidelines—how do workers fit in? Good workers prone to burnout. (Interview 30) Other departments should cooperate better with [this department] who is already underfunctioning; [employee] has to leave the [client] to [accomplish clerical task]. (Interview 41) Improve internal flow of vital records; ensure competence in other departments to process . . . records. (Interview 42) [Need] restructuring of functions and communication with other departments ([two departments named]) that [this department] interfaces with to reduce mistakes and workload. Improve working relationships between departments in terms of accuracy and workflow. (Interview 43) Entire communication system in [organization] needs improvement; need to ensure that information filters to all departments; e.g., changes in policies, benefits etc. (Interview 46) [We] cannot supply the [organization] with what is critically needed; [other] departments don’t understand this phenomena, and seems like they want us to work magic. (Interview 47)

Interviewees at the school also complained of poor information flow, particularly from the district level.

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

139

Get information—half-day notice. Mean well. Chain of command. Details. Bring everyone down. School doing great things. Teachers get frustrated. (Interview 70) Information—getting forms at the last minute. Work around, but one week ahead be able to inform parents. (Interview 83) [Information is] last minute and disorganized. [School event]—didn’t know. Bulletin only a sketch. Mistake on what class should go. . . . [Need information] sharing—don’t understand what I should do. (Interview 92)

Interdepartmental Conflicts and Power Struggles. Unhealthy competition manifests in interdepartmental conflicts and power struggles. Following are examples from the interviews. . . . personal vendettas and department wars. (Interview 6) People coming from other departments playing the boss. . . . In the course of making a [client] happy—other departments don’t cooperate. (Interview 10) Printouts for [specific task] are not being retrieved on a timely basis and this inefficiency often backlashes affects the [department] because [other department] is not holding up their end. History of battles between [these two departments] is ongoing. The perception that [members of other department] have that [this department] is responsible for certain things is unwarranted—when problems occur [other department] supervisor don’t come to [this department] supervisor and lodge complaints which are openly aired in full managers meeting and [this department] supervisor is unable to defend allegations. (Interview 11) All the good people are leaving. [Name] resigned today—a pillar of [department name]. [Another name] suspended and then fired at will of manager of [department] over personality conflicts with [executive manager]. (Interview 15) Inconsistency in role responsibility; managers should watch what they say across departments, because it affects the morale of the employees. Internal department problems ought not be spread outside the department. (Interview 18) Supervisor prematurely tells employees outside the department about action they’re going to take with their employee. (Interview 23) Extra stresses—power struggles. [Specific department] does not supply [specific supply] promptly. [Employee] has to do legwork and retrieve [supply] themselves, consequently these extra runnings slows down the process of already overloaded [client] schedule. . . . [Specific department] has to be reskilled and retooled. Insist on being bureaucratic/belligerent about simple completion of paperwork. “This is not my job.” [Employees] have to leave their stations to come downstairs to fill in minute details. (Interview 29)

140

CHAPTER 4

Division and power struggles between groups (especially [this department]) must stop. (Interview 32) [This department] will benefit from cross communication with departments who they rely on for their functioning; this will reduce animosity by, particularly [another department named], who won’t cooperate when critical reports are needed. (Interview 41) [We] function as the cleanup department for problems other departments create. Catch careless mistakes that occur during processing of records that delay payment and could cost a host of legal problems later on— does cause a lot of frustration and stress. (Interview 42) In the 24 years that I have worked here, this year seems to be the worst— backstabbing among managers and they do some very nasty things to the employees. (Interview 45)

At the school, several interviewees cited problems of unhealthy competition between groups and individuals. Trust not genuine. Successful team, but competition in fighting for [administrator’s] attention. (Interview 92)

In particular, there is a problem between older, veteran teacher and younger, newer teachers. In fact, a distinct factionalization between the “old guard” and “new guard” is identifiable. [Challenge:] Disparity in age group—Ex. Five years away from retirement, 5 years or less teaching experience, less than five who fall in the middle. The old guard against the new guard. (Interview 50) A friction between old and new teachers. (Interview 85) [Challenge:] Staff. Older teachers feel threatened acceptance/authority. Want consistency. . . . Older teachers spy on younger for principal. . . . (Interview 92) [Challenge:] To get the new staff to understand that the day does not promptly end at 3:30 PM. (Interview 100) [Commentary by veteran regarding perceived poor work ethic of new teachers] [Challenge:] Old and new teacher relationships. (Interview 106) [Challenge:] Old school vs. new school—seasoned teachers have their own clique need “icebreaker” not trying to blind you—television—“only seeing things one-way.” To build morale—some “old” intimidated by new scholarship—use of language often creates tension or barrier. (Interview 116)

On the other hand, it must be noted that the mix of veteran and new teachers was mentioned by several people as a significantly positive aspect of

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

141

the organization (Interviews 66, 75, 77, 111, 112), and many recommended ways that this potential might be more fully tapped (Interviews 61, 91, 113, 119). Redundancy and Duplication of Effort. Because of the relative isolation from one another in which departments at the human service organization function and the uneasy relationships among departments, a frustratingly high level of redundancy and duplication occurs. One problem that is most damaging to the organization is that this often falls upon the client who must endure the tedium of repeatedly giving the same basic information—sometimes to the same person over multiple visits. Ineffective communication between [this] department manager and [executive manager] results in inefficiency, redundancy and impacts productivity. (Interview 21) Antiquated in-take system is onerous and time-consuming. People who are repeat [clients] already in the system should just be updated. . . . A lot of duplication of efforts could be eliminated re: intake if have proper software used to enhance system and tasks become more centralized. (Interview 43) [Clients] feel frustrated and exasperated every time they have to fill out papers for [service] regardless of how many times a day or per week. (Interview 44)

Paradoxical Use of Physical Space. At the human service organization, space that would ordinarily be used for client services becomes idle when business is diminished. The fact that business is diminished is the singlemost grave financial concern for the entire organization. Yet, the idle space (which should be filled with clients receiving services) has become taken up with administrative office space. Ostensibly, in lean times the major goal of administration should be to increase business; yet, when clients come in for service, no space can be found to accommodate them, because it is being used for clerical purposes. This is a profound example of goal displacement in a divergence between measurable productivity and mission/purpose. Without a steady and robust influx of clients requiring services, the organization ceases to have a purpose. The clerical and administrative work exists because of clients seeking services. Yet, in this organization where the influx of clients has become so severely diminished as to threaten the organization’s very existence, administrative/clerical work has literally taken over, preventing the very function that keeps the organization alive. Interdepartmental competition for physical space allocation has subverted the very purpose of the organization. The notion of productivity has become devoid of long-term vision and exists in the moment. Empty space is viewed

142

CHAPTER 4

as unproductive space, so it is filled with those who are producing, regardless of the fact that they will soon have precious little substance to produce without space for the organization’s very purpose. Space reserved for clients, when left empty, should alert organizational members (particularly administration) of the need to concentrate on increasing business. Instead, the unused space is seen as an opportunity to reallocate space to administrative use. This practice is rather like a shipping company suddenly discovering midvoyage that their cargo holds are empty but continuing onward, having reallocated the empty space to process and store navigation records—rather than stopping to devise strategies that might attract the customers necessary to keep the company in existence. For example, one manager clearly states what is obvious to all employees: Need to [get clients] . . . numbers are down. (Interview 5)

Even so, a common complaint among regular employees echoes: [Client space converted to office space] is not open [for clients] and often there are no [facilities] available to [serve clients], thus [unit reserved for special purpose] is often used to supplement. (Interview 43)

Such practice further subverts the organization’s purpose by making it even less able to meet the needs of those who most critically need the organization’s services. And, intertwined with power and authority issues, some clients are afforded more privilege, based not on need, but on position and political influence—further subverting the mission: [Clients with pressing needs] not met with a sense of urgency (arrangements are not made in advance to accommodate [client, but] if it is friend or family of senior management these are given more privilege). (Interview 43)

Conflicts Surrounding Time At the human service organization, one particular department has experienced a number of conflicts in its operation. In particular, difficulties seem to center around issues of timeliness, revealing a contradiction between monosynchronic and polysynchronic time orientations. In this instance, management invokes the European-American value of monosynchronic time, whereas the workers invoke the African-American value of polysynchronic time. There seems to be a divergence in values between the Europeanbased notion of getting it done “on time” (by the clock) and the African-

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

143

based notion of getting it done “in time” (according to the needs of the task). An employee was fired after following the manager’s orders to complete a particular task “on time” because he did so by expediting the task and not allowing the full time required for the task to be completed properly, which impacted other processes severely. (Unfortunately for our explanation of this analysis, confidentiality concerns preclude specific description of the task itself or the resulting incidents.) Without appropriate negotiation between their divergent values, a dysfunctional outcome resulted. Clearly, the manager did not mean for the employee to underperform the task. However, the divergence of values left the employee without alternatives and placed him in paradox because the divergence of values left no room for negotiation. Other contradictions between rules and resources can be seen in this particular case: the value of authority vs. the value of experience, and measurable productivity vs. mission/purpose/excellence. The manager was pulling toward the European-American cultural structure by invoking authority to produce a particular quota of tasks completed, whereas the employee was pulling toward the African-American cultural structure by invoking his experience to produce the purpose of quality. Because of the power imbalance between the two individuals, the manager’s will prevailed and the task was cut short; however, the employee was unable to reconcile the contradictions and so complied to the manager’s will by simply producing more quickly by reducing the time—“against his better judgment” (Interview 35). He gave up his attempt to invoke his cultural rules and resources, but did not adopt management’s cultural rules and resources. The result was that he was blamed for a poor organizational outcome and was fired. Once again, communication and feedback become key, both for understanding time constraints and respecting the competence of the individual doing the work. Respect is essential for working with the employee, rather than forcing managerial authority that ultimately does not serve the organization or the individual well. Such issues surrounding timeliness, authority, and productivity also surface in the same department regarding punctuality in opening and closing the department for business and in meeting deadlines (Interview 16). However, these issues in this department cannot be understood in isolation from a host of other issues grounded in the cultural divergences we have identified. Communication among the employees in this department is “difficult”; there is a great deal of strife and latent conflict that surfaces indirectly, through “dropping innuendoes” and other such strategies. People are described as “tired” and “frustrated by the system” (Interview 16). In addition, they feel unappreciated: People complain a lot. . . . And they feel they are doing their best and don’t get any praise or rewards from senior management. Present exodus in

144

CHAPTER 4

[this department] contributes to the morale problem and also has had a history of not being appreciated. . . . [One specific person] does the job of three people as well as other jobs . . . and this creates a lot of stress on key personnel. . . . There is often no equality across the board in terms of compensation, etc. and that creates morale problems too. In staff meetings employees are voiceless and often won’t give input concerning simple requests because of fear of reprisals or because of history of no follow-through on suggestions. . . . Employees are very distrustful of managers because of history of showing favoritism and ignoring others who were similarly talented. (Interview 16)

People in this department feel underpaid, unappreciated, and oppressed. Promises for training and development are not fulfilled. Interviewees claim they stay because of their commitment to a predominantly Black institution. Otherwise, they claim “an exodus” in the department due to “a history of abuse” (Interview 16). The manager of this particular department was described by one small group of employees in the following way: . . . initially very domineering of what [manager] wanted instead of listening to employee concerns. It seems like [manager] is working against the employees’ suggestions, causes low morale, employees getting fired for silly little things, things are getting out of hand. When [manager] makes a mistake, blames on the employees. Don’t listen to us, communicate in a nonconcerned manner, gives solution, but don’t let employee provide input to resolve. Communicate autocratically, instead of educating regarding new rules etc., and employees have to conform or else things have to be done [manager’s] way—a lot of inconsistencies in [manager’s] leadership. (Interview 34)

In addition to cultural divergences surrounding timeliness, authority, and productivity, we also clearly see in this department divergences between objectification and humanism; profit/economic motivation and commitment to community and between the value of the written word and the value of the spoken word. These employees clearly feel that their unique talents and contributions are ignored (humanism) by a system that measures their value according to timeclocks and deadlines. They stay because of their commitment to the Black community, feeling oppressed by managers whose motivation is to do business efficiently and who view their failures (that quite likely arise from this cultural disjointedness) as validating “the sub-standard stereotype” (Interview 16). They are promised training that will develop their skills (spoken), but there is no official (written) followthrough. Because of these contradictions, they have become frustrated, and a great deal of backbiting has resulted. An intractable downward spiral has been set in place for employees of this department.

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

145

The Notion of Timeliness. Commentary about time surfaces throughout interviews with the human service organization members. Managers occasionally complain of employee tardiness. For example, a middle manager complained that at “crucial scheduled meetings, employees don’t show up or are late” (Interview 6). Much more common, however, are references to the importance of “timeliness.” Interviewees do not speak of the need for actions to be “on time,” but rather, the word that is used repeatedly is “timely” (or “untimely”). The reference is more to the need for an appropriate fit between tasks/needs and actions (being “in time”), rather than an adherence to a fixed schedule or deadlines. The phrase repeatedly used by numerous interviewees is “on a timely basis.” Although denotatively the same as saying on time, this phrase has quite a different connotative character. To do something on time is to adhere to a fixed schedule, reliant upon clocks and calendars. To do something on a timely basis is to maintain a consistent and smooth flow of work; this does not require fixed schedules of (clock) times and dates (although it also does not preclude them). In addition, the phrase was invoked particularly in cases where someone else’s lack of timeliness impacted the speaker’s own workflow. For example, rather than saying that outside vendors need to be paid on time, one middle manager stated, “vendors need to be paid on a timely basis.” (Interview 5). Another middle manager, complaining of inefficiency in picking up paperwork by members of another department, stated that the documents were “not being retrieved on a timely basis” (Interview 11). Regular employees also commonly used similar phrasing: [Executive manager] don’t communicate with [department] staff—more an impediment than an assistance—does not work out solutions in a timely or professional manner. (Interview 29) Timely orientation should be provided [for new employees]. (Interview 29) Seemingly work is pushed on you—no basic routine to the job, yet expectations are that work has to finish at a certain time. Communication is untimely, tasks are rescheduled daily without prior notice. (Interview 37) . . . work should be planned and scheduled on a timely basis. . . . (Interview 45)

In interviews from the school, similar phrasing is also common. One teacher praised an administrator, saying that the person was “timely” (Interview 92). Another (one of several) complained of the relative slowness of office staff in getting photocopying jobs completed. “You can’t get copies in timely fashion” (Interview 65). Another teacher, in discussing critical issues for improvement, stated that teachers need to “make sure [classroom] material is presented in a timely fashion” (Interview 106). We find the use of such distinct and similar phrasing a notable indication of the cultural orien-

146

CHAPTER 4

tation toward time (polysynchronicity) as a matter of appropriate fit between action and tasks needs that ensures a smooth workflow; this orientation diverges from the Eurocentric notion of time (monosynchronicity) reliant on rigid schedules of specified (clock) times and dates. Interestingly, although it is quite a common problem, only one teacher complained about children whose parents are not vigilant about getting them to school on time (Interview 72). The Lack of Support for Spirituality It is interesting to note that the strong sense of spirituality and religiosity found among the human service organization interviewees is juxtaposed with the organization’s administrators eliminating a meditation space that had always existed. The space was being used for offices—an unambiguous contradiction between materialism and spirituality (see Tables 1.2 and 3.2). Understanding African-American culture and the importance of spirituality in its history, as well as the importance of spirituality in the history of this organization, the elimination of the meditation space is a crucial red flag indicating the cultural derailment of this organizational system. Summary We see in the foregoing descriptions of organizational problems distinct contradictions between the Eurocentric cultural structure of the organizations’ design and the Afrocentric features of the African-American members’ cultural structure. Each continuum is represented, albeit some more frequently than others: relational orientation/task orientation; spirituality/ materialism; community/economic; shared responsibility/control; unity/hierarchy; experience/authority; continuous/dichotomous; humanism/objectification; mission/productivity; age/youth; collectivism/individualism; interdependence/self-reliance; common good/competition; spoken/written; communal/efficiency; polysynchronic/monosynchronic; intersubjective/objective; holism/dualism; circularity/linearity; and inductivist/reductionist. In addition, we see more examples of divergences at the human service organization than at the school, reflecting its more dire condition. We turn next to a discussion of imperialism and slavery and their relationship to African-American organizational processes. We believe this helps add meaning because this history is the origin from which all interpenetration between Eurocentric and Afrocentric cultural structures begins. To understand the particular divergences between Eurocentric and Afrocentric rules and resources in the African-American divergent organization, we must consider the African-American organizational experience as grounded in the organizational history of Africans in America.

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

147

Imperialism and Slavery Bolt (1984) defines imperialism as “sustained assertion of power over others and the development of justification for its assertion” (cited in Adeleke, 1998, p. 14). Adeleke (1998) streamlines Bolt’s definition, applying it to European imperialism as it relates to Africa—the European assertion of power over Africa and the development of ideological justification for the exercise of that power that serves to legitimate imperialism. Imperialism manifests dramatically in the slave trade, and the ideology of European imperialism, postslavery, continued to manifest in the colonization of Africa that severely decimated the development of African sovereignty (Khapoya, 1998). Thus, as colonialism emerges on the African continent, it has as its philosophic source the same imperialist ideology as slavery. Slavery and colonialism are philosophical siblings, and so they inform each other. The impact of imperialism on organizing for the African is well-documented by Khapoya’s (1998) and others’ treatments of changes in political and other systems. The impact of imperialism on organizing for the African in America, however, has not been documented. It is undoubtedly a similar process as that which occurred in the process of European colonization of Africa. However, historical implications applicable to organizational experiences of African Americans must be examined through the slave experience. It is that historical experience we attempt to sketch here, with particular emphasis on modes, styles, and values of organizing that evolve. We now attempt to provide a basic overview of historical implications by examining historical and critical cultural treatments of slavery and drawing out implications for African-American organizational processes. Psychological Impact of Slavery Akbar (1984b) explains the psychological bruises of slavery by examining the selected themes of work, property, leadership, personal inferiority, community division, the family, and color consciousness. Within the context of these themes, Akbar makes a contemporary application of the existing rudiments of slavery in the lives of African Americans. Akbar’s (1984b) major argument rests in the belief that the slave experience deposited certain emotional/mental bruises that have been transmitted through hundreds of years or generations to African Americans. These bruises have manifested as negative behavioral dynamics that have served to unconsciously damage the psychological functioning of African Americans. Akbar posits that slavery captures the mind, incarcerates the motivation, perception, aspiration, and identity in a web of anti-self-images, and generates a personal and collective self-destruction; these results are far more cruel than the shackles on the wrists and ankles. Akbar (1984b) introduces the

148

CHAPTER 4

revolutionary non-Western collectivist notion that individual behavior can be influenced by collective factors that are historically remote. Akbar’s (1984b) argument is bolstered as we examine behavioral dynamics of predominantly African-American organizations. Often these systems have been described as dysfunctional or inferior to dominant culture organizational systems. However, it is our contention that these negative descriptions are an outgrowth of traditional Eurocentric structural constraints of a hierarchical system in tension with an innate Afrocentric cultural system that is communal in nature and relational in work performance. This is explicated in our treatment of divergence in chapters 2 to 5. The specific theme in Akbar’s (1984b) work that has particular meaning for application to predominantly African-American organizations is his theme of work. Akbar (1984b) argues that one of the attitudes that has been passed on from slavery is African-American attitudes toward work. Akbar’s historical examination points out that although the slave was forced to work under the threat of abuse or even death, the work was not for the purpose of providing for his own life’s needs. Instead, he worked to produce for the slave master. Work was also commonly used as a punishment. Work came to be despised as any punishment is despised. Work became hated, as does any activity that accomplishes no reward for the doer. Work became identified with slavery, identified as the activity of the underdog and difficult to view with pride. Work became approached unwillingly and out of necessity only. Akbar (1984b) suggests that the contemporary African-American slang expression, which refers to “a job” as “a slave” communicates this painful connection. Thus, any time work is treated or experienced as oppressive or disrespectful, a negative attitude or disposition is often enacted that could unconsciously trigger this painful connection, coupled with memories of discriminatory practices and inequitable experiences in the labor force. Negative behavioral responses toward work in the African-American organization emerge strongly in the supervisor-employee relationship. Traditional Eurocentric management theory refers to the “superior–subordinate” relationship implicit in the vertically hierarchical system. The traditional organizational chart is theoretically designed top-down; moving through this vertically linear schema are employees who work for or who are under the authority of the next linearly ranking official. Throughout our discussion here, we use the phrase superior–subordinate consciously to highlight the inherent subordination embedded in the European organizational form. As stated, negative behavioral responses toward work manifest in the superior–subordinate relationship. Often these behavioral responses can be attributed to the management style of the superior. To the extent that the manager uses controlling language, oversees (or micromanages) the performance of the employee, imposes unnecessary controls in an attempt to

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

149

understand the status of the work, and speaks to employees with disrespect, worker attitudes will diminish and become negative. That is, while the employee recognizes that the manager has a high-ranking position, she or he expects and needs the manager to speak respectfully and reward or compliment him or her for his or her expertise. Of course, this is no different than in any organization. However it is our contention that the superior–subordinate relationship is an unconscious reminder of the oppressive relationship of master–slave manifested in the institution of slavery in the United States. This may at least partly explain why organizational divergence processes are so much more destructive in AfricanAmerican organizational systems than in predominantly European/European-American organizations (see chap. 6). It is within the context of the superior–subordinate relationship that power, authority, and control are abusive or perceived to be abusive; this creates resentment among employees as they discern that they are treated disrespectfully by management and that they are neither listened to nor appreciated. Our data is replete with examples of employees who are disgruntled due to managerial disrespect or disregard. However, it is important to note that these managers have been educated and well trained in Eurocentric organizational theory. The subservience implicit in hierarchical structure is hidden by the naturalized assumption of “sound management behavior” socialized through years of learning and experience. Thus, it is difficult for management in some instances to perceive or understand negative behavioral responses of employees. This phenomenon continues to create communication and behavioral tension which contributes to further organizational divergence processes. Such statements in the data are what we call oppressive derivatives manifesting in the superior–subordinate relationship, which can ultimately immobilize the systemic functioning of the organization. As oppressive derivatives manifest, the employees individually utilize power where they can—in their execution or performance of the work. It is not that employees do not care about the work or are not competent to perform it. It is simply that the employee recoils or rebels against a management style that lacks respect and regard for his or her importance to the organization. Salary compensation does not eradicate the disdain employees have for perceived inhumane or indifferent treatment. African-American employees have a deep need to be valued in the work environment. Being valued produces higher levels of productivity and efficiency. De-valuation triggers the unconscious memory of slavery and perhaps the ever-present challenges of societal racism, discrimination, and inequity. These phenomena manifest in repeated power struggles—some overt and others covert, which silently destroy or eat away at effective functioning. The employee is in tension with inequitable treatments of the society and now experiences similar inequity

150

CHAPTER 4

in the work environment. Thus, communication, involvement, and respectful dialogue regarding change, transition, or new management directives become key in creating a more fluid effective system. Otherwise, the employee functions with a psychological barrier that distances her/him from full engagement. Often the salary compensation is lower than what the employees believe they are worth; therefore, the employees even more firmly believe that the superior–subordinate relationship must be rooted in respect and overt appreciation for work executed. Several examples from our data support these conclusions: Lack of respect for individual employees’ talents and abilities by [executive manager]. Threatening attitude. . . . Employee is scolded and told, “do you want your job?” . . . No appreciation for work done: “just do what I tell you to do.” (Interview 20) Feel like [organization] operate on a slave mentality “do as I say to do or else.” (Interview 22) Senior management [needs to] treat people with respect and dignity. (Interview 23) Manager’s approach is not always in a manner that is appropriate. When employee responds negatively, they are reprimanded. (Interview 25) Executives don’t care about staff. (Interview 32) When [the organization] was under [a previous] administration, people were appreciated; the administration of the early [years] worked alongside employees, sit at lunch with the employees, listened to their needs, work to resolve conflicts, and thanked them at the end of the day. . . . [Now] Executives come up on the floor and don’t speak, say hello, etc. Manager has to get approval for everything, just a middle person with no power. Managers with power and control over you don’t know how to treat people lovingly. One is outright disrespected if they voice their opinion [to management]. [Employees are] treated as subordinate or object in an oppressive manner. . . . Bottom line: inconsistency in implementation of policy and procedures. . . . [Extended hours] are given without any notice, discussion, or commiseration. If you speak out you’re seen as uncooperative and/or insubordinate. We feel in bondage here. One has to assume a posture of passivity here because you’re placed on a hit list if you speak out. (Interview 33)

Most telling are the direct references to slavery (“slave mentality” and feeling “in bondage”). The experience of the oppression inherent in the superior–subordinate relationship is deeply felt. Clearly, it seems to engender a cultural memory of slavery for many of our respondents. When examining the institution of slavery, accounts of slaves who were, of course, forced participants in the institution best portrays their work ex-

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

151

periences. Franklin and Schweninger (1999) in their work Runaway Slaves, discuss day-to-day resistance in the slaves’ response to forced labor. Some blacks worked slowly, or indifferently, took unscheduled respites, performed careless or sloppy labor when planting, hoeing, and harvesting crops. Some chopped cotton so nonchalantly that they cut the young plants nearly into fodder, while others harvested rice or sugar with such indifference that they damaged the crop. Slaves feigned illness, hid in outbuildings, did not complete their assigned tasks, and balked at performing dangerous work. (p. 3)

These examples suggest that slaves expressed their discontent for dehumanizing treatment by being unproductive or ineffective workers. It is not that the slaves could not produce or were not competent workers. The slaves simply rebelled against a forceful and annihilating work ethic that diminished their self-regard and dignity. In our data, of course, the executive managers or supervisors do not treat the employees as inhumanely as Franklin and Schweninger’s account of the slaves’ response to forced labor. However, what is important here is the historical connection in that the worker demands a level of respect in the interpersonal communication process. Management protocols designed to control work processes often produce negative behavioral responses on the part of employees who perceive such control as a lack of trust or respect. Active engagement and participation are crucial, and in their absence employees do not respond with vigor to the assigned work. Informal communication channels carry these disgruntled views, but when questioned by management regarding their dissonance, employees often respond with hesitancy or even silence. The thought of reprisals limits honest communication, organizational divergence continues, and organizational processes suffer. Herein is the direct historical connection to the contemporary AfricanAmerican organization: when employees perceive that they are managed in a disrespectful manner, the behavioral response to such management is indifference to how the work is performed. And, if the indifference is not shown in the execution of the work, it emerges in negative behaviors and attitudes that create tension between the supervisor and employee or in relationships with the clientele that the organization serves. There is a deep cultural need to establish a respectful relationship with management irrespective of positional status in the organization. Thus, being respected and being appreciated in the work relationship becomes critical. The story of slavery has lived within the historical experience of African Americans, resulting in discriminatory practices in employment, housing, education, and ostensibly every area of African Americans’ lives. Dignity, self-respect, self-regard, and cultural pride are essential to a wholesome re-

152

CHAPTER 4

ality for African-American culture. Therefore, whether interacting in the same culture or a different culture, lack of respect—facilitated by the authority of vertically hierarchical structural constraints—can manifest in tension and lack of resolve in the organization and in the management–employee relationship specifically. The Role of Overseer Employee perceptions of managers can also be closely linked to the role of the overseer on the plantation. The role of overseer was always seen with much disdain in the work of the plantation. Franklin and Schweninger (1999) assert that slaves often bore particular resentment toward overseers. Slaves resented being chided, scolded, chastised, punished, and whipped; they dislike being supervised during their work day by young, inexperienced white men who moved to the next plantation within a few months or years . . . on some plantations slaves attempted to undermine the overseer’s authority in subtle and surreptitious ways, while on others they criticized him openly, complaining to the owner about harsh or unfair treatment. At times, the tensions between slaves and overseers or between slaves, drivers, and overseers erupted into verbal and physical confrontations. (p. 9)

Frederick Douglass (1969, orig. 1855), in his autobiography My Bondage and My Freedom, describes his experience and perception of the role of overseer: I speak of overseers as a class. They are such. They are as distinct from the slaveholding gentry of the south, as are the fish-women of Paris, and the coalheavers of London, distinct from other members of society. The office of overseer takes this raw material of vulgarity and brutality, stamps it as a distinct class of southern society. . . . Mr. Gore was one of those overseers, who could torture the slightest word or look into impudence; he had the nerve, not only to resent, but to punish, promptly and severely. He never allowed himself to be answered back, by a slave. . . . It is better that a dozen slaves suffer under the lash, without fault, than that the master or the overseer should seem to have been wrong in the presence of the slave. Everything must be absolute here. (p. 121)

The position of overseer brought with it the use of power and authority in the most cruel and brutal manner. Ultimately, the slave is totally disrespected, but the services of the slave are needed and most useful to the economic system of slavery. Thus, not being able to speak back and being punished for voicing an opinion are manifestations of the abuse of power and authority in the overseers’ role. The link to our data here is eminently clear. Resentment toward managers/supervisors becomes the contempo-

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

153

rary organizational behavioral response when employees perceive that the manager’s expression of authority communicates “overseeing” the work. Although attending to worker productivity is important, the way in which this attention is communicated is paramount. Humanism and respect for professional acumen are crucial; their absence results in unresolved, often unarticulated, conflict that manifests in employee’s interpersonal interaction. Attention to the manner in which authority is communicated is critical in deconstructing this relational difficulty. This section has examined significant historical behavioral observations that can be linked to an African-American historical understanding of the work relationship in the master–slave relationship. Although slavery is a historically distant reality, the memory of this institution makes African-American cultural members mindful of the importance of humanism, respect, and dignity in work relationships. There is little patience or understanding for any form of organizational subservience that diminishes employees’ respectful functioning in the system. The next section introduces the construct of the enculturated organization and the particular understanding that this philosophy provides in understanding the interpenetration of contradicting structures in the divergent organization.

THE ENCULTURATED ORGANIZATION The question of external validity arises. In other words, do we see similar patterns, traceable to cultural divergences, in other predominately AfricanAmerican organizations with the Eurocentric organizational form/design? Fortunately, there is a small but rich literature on African-American/Black organizations. Unfortunately, very little of it addresses internal communication dynamics in such organizations. One scholar, however, stands out. As previously stated, Warfield-Coppock (1995) documents a phenomenon she calls “the enculturated organization” that quite strongly resembles the process described herein. The dimensions of organization she identifies are rather similar to the polar ends of our continua (see Tables 1.1, 3.2, and 3.3); likewise, her “enculturated organization” is closely reminiscent of our “divergent organization.” In fact, as illustrated next, Warfield-Coppock’s (1995) descriptions of communication and behavioral difficulties encountered in such organizations are virtually a mirror image of those found in our data. The enculturated organization is a blend of the Eurocentric organization with some influences of Black culture. It takes, however, some of the worst characteristics of oppressed people and imposes them on the group dynamics of the people. Although it possesses positive characteristics of African culture,

154

CHAPTER 4

there is a tendency for this type of organization to be culturally confused. The enculturated organization follows the lead of the Eurocentric type, believing that the way to make it in America is to follow the dominant group, using their methods and strategies for success. The quirk is that the African Americans selecting this path still maintain some Africanisms in behavior and attitude, and the result is a concoction of Eurocentric business practices with a damaged self-concept. (p. 42)

We are greatly interested in and unavoidably influenced by WarfieldCoppock’s (1994, 1995) work. However, we disagree with her conceptualization of the difficulties of Black organizations as “a concoction of Eurocentric business practices with a damaged self-concept” (1995, p. 42). Rather, we prefer an explanation that delves deeper into contradictions between African-centered and European-centered cultural structures. Furthermore, as fully discussed in chapter 3, we prefer to see these contradictions as divergence, or pulling away, culturally. We conceptualize the strain on members of an “enculturated” or “divergent” organization as one of unnatural stretching; they are constantly pulled simultaneously in opposite directions. Table 4.1 depicts Warfield-Coppock’s (1995) full model for her Afrocentric framework for organizations, including the enculturated organization as a column between the Afrocentric and Eurocentric descriptions. Even the most perfunctory glance at the middle column of Table 4.1 reveals several characteristics we observe in the organizations in our present data set: a mindset of survival, mixed material and personal values, the belief that human beings need correction, knowledge residing in both God and self, despotism, favoritism, mistreatment of others, decision-making based on personal issues, and personal orientation toward work are most obviously similar. Warfield-Coppock’s (1995) theoretic explanations of the phenomena observed are rooted in the psychology of the oppressed. We follow a similar path as we explore the history of the African-American experience and link that history to patterns in our data in chapters 3, 4, and 5. In addition, here we seek to more fully flesh out our theory of cultural divergence as a rich explanation, characterizing this explanation as being complicated by, perhaps sometimes driven by, the psychological complexities of oppression. The values identified by Warfield-Coppock are not identical to the ones that we extract from our data, and we have not pursued the naming of specific organizational dimensions for each comparison of cultural values; however, the character of the values in her Afrocentric and Eurocentric columns is markedly equivalent to our findings (see Tables 1.1 and 3.2). Because her specific descriptions of the enculturated organization so closely fit our own data, we take time to discuss here several organizational dimensions that Warfield-Coppock (1995) expounds upon: cosmology, axiology, ontology, epistemology, management, leadership, administration, power/

Organizational Dimension

Oneness with others Humanistic Natural goodness Spiritual Support/care for group Communal teams Selected by the people Humanistic policies Council/spread Collaborative Win-win Familial/interdependent Sense of excellence Cooperative teams

Afrocentric Organization

Survival oriented Mixed material/personal Needs correction God and self Supportive fiefdom Benevolent Despot Favoritism Mistreatment/misuse of others Use personal issues Negotiate, compromise Benevolent authoritarian Personal orientation Based on job

Enculturated Organization

Control Materialistic Do before others do Self Large profits Hierarchy Authoritarian Based on bottom line In the hierarchy Win–lose Handed down Person to object Quantitative output Competitive

Eurocentric Organization

TABLE 4.1 Warfield-Coppock’s (1995) Afrocentric Conceptual Framework for Organizations

Cosmology (worldview) Axiology (values) Ontology (nature of man) Epistemology Organization style Management Leadership Administrative Power/authority Decision making Problem solving Staff relations Work orientation Productivity

155

156

CHAPTER 4

authority, decision making, staff relations, work orientation, and productivity. It is instructive to closely examine Warfield-Coppock’s (1995) descriptions of each dimension as they manifest in the enculturated organization because each of her descriptions mirrors some aspect of our data. Cosmology. Warfield-Coppock traces the survival orientation to “the negative ‘subconscious root’ of an oppressed people” (p. 42). We can also identify divergence between the Afrocentric orientation of oneness and the Eurocentric orientation of control. Most interesting is Warfield-Coppock’s (1995) claim that this may manifest as lack of trust, self-centeredness, and behaviors that are not conducive to harmony (e.g., gossip, backbiting, etc.) in the organization. . . . Therefore, the subconscious root of an organization will cause tensions between departments or members of the organizations that are based on the “crabs in the barrel,” or the “I got mine, you got yours to get” attitude. (p. 42)

Here, Warfield-Coppock could easily be describing the members of our organizations. Axiology. Warfield-Coppock (1995) does not theoretically trace the mix of material and personal values she identifies in the enculturated organization. Again, however, her description could be of the organizations in the present study: It is believed that if you work with people that look and act like you, then they will look out for you—watch your back, or so to speak. This could not be further from the truth in the enculturated organization . . . personal relationships become a weapon. A lack of trust and integrity begets further mistrust and dishonesty. (p. 42)

Here, again, we would speculate that the relational problems described stem from cultural divergence between humanistic and materialistic values. We can note in our data, as well as our anecdotal experience with predominantly African-American organizations, that there persist unrealistic expectations among African-American newcomers to African-American organizations. These expectations comprise a homecoming myth of sorts. Having been discriminated against in many ways by predominantly White organizational systems (addressed further in chap. 5), African-American individuals entering predominantly African-American organizations tend to come into the organization with a false sense that they will be embraced and accepted in the form of a homecoming. They do not expect to be treated disrespectfully or spoken to without regard for the competence and skills they bring

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

157

and want to contribute. Employees come to “give back” and to make a contribution to their own cultural organizational systems. Without an understanding of the inherent difficulties of the divergent (or enculturated) organization, these expectations will quite naturally be violated. The result is disillusionment, disappointment, and anger. It is our contention that this myth of homecoming exacerbates the difficulties engendered by the interpenetration of contradictory cultural structures. Ontology. Here again, Warfield-Coppock (1995) turns to the psychology of the oppressed to explain the phenomenon she has observed. Briefly, she contends that members of Black organizations believe that there are basic deficiencies in people, and therefore there will be deficits in their group efforts. Warfield-Coppock identifies the “unconscious core” or the belief that African Americans are flawed and have many shortcomings—an internalization of oppressive and negative stereotypic beliefs. This will manifest itself in a basic lack of respect for others in the organization. Negative actions such as undermining others, sabotage of projects, gossiping and placing others in a bad light, and in general creating an uncomfortable atmosphere will result in cliquish and divisive behaviors. (p. 42, emphasis added)

Again, many of Warfield-Coppock’s (1995) observations about enculturated organizations are obviously present in our data. Epistemology. Here again, Warfield-Coppock (1995) does not provide a theoretic root for the cultural values she identifies. “The epistemology of the enculturated organization is God and self, not necessarily in that order. There is often a strong belief in God, but it is not seen as important function of the business. The mission of the organization or business becomes more one of self-expression than one of divine origin and/or mission” (p. 42). This is more descriptive of our school organization than our human service organization. However, it must be noted that even in the human service organization data, where references to God were more pronounced, those individuals represented but a small proportion of organizational members. In fact, in both organizations respondents’ sense of mission was in maintaining a sense of pride in tradition and heritage and serving the Black community. Particularly at the human service organization, numerous respondents mentioned a sense of pride in serving “my/our own community” or “my/our own people,” which could be construed as a form of self-expression coupled with a desire and a feeling of responsibility to “give back” to the wider community.

158

CHAPTER 4

Management, Leadership, and Administration. Warfield-Coppock (1995) discusses leadership, management, and administration together. She describes organizational leadership as “a select group, perhaps the founders, with a certain level of trust among them” (p. 42). Even where leaders are outside hires, she describes an “inner core” of people around them. Respondents from both of the organizations in the present study described such a phenomenon (e.g., “too many followers and too many spies,” Interview 48). Warfield-Coppock (1995) explicitly references egotism among leaders, again echoing our own data. The inner core will be chosen for supporting the dominion of the current “king.” The reason the person is elevated beyond the level of leader to King is that often oppressed persons, with weak ego structures, must have people around them that will cater to them and sing their praises in the fashion of the ancient griot. (p. 43)

Furthermore, she describes the leadership style as “a divine kingship stripped of its African-centered contextual grounding” (p. 43). This “allows the leader to exercise supreme authority without regard for rules or regulations that may normally service parameters for such positions” (p. 43). Again, as illustrated previously in our discussion of cultural divergences, respondents in both organizations complained, sometimes bitterly, about such behavior of their leaders. Warfield-Coppock (1995) also describes another aspect that surfaces in our data as well—that of the liberties of executive perks. Because African Americans want strong leaders, they often allow them to take liberties by combining personal and business missions and pursuits. The result is sometimes an enculturated version of divine kingship, based on the subconscious root of oppression, with the attitudes of benevolence and favoritism to go along with such a leadership posture. (p. 43)

Power and Authority, Decision Making, Staff Relations, Work Orientation, and Productivity. Warfield-Coppock (1995) combines her discussion of these dimensions as well. Again, the two organizations in the present study show strikingly similar patterns to what she describes. Power and authority are based in the top echelon and can show widespread abuse. Policies and rules may be used or ignored based on the desires of leadership. Personal issues such as family name, physical characteristics, or alma mater, sororal, and fraternal affiliations may be used in decision making, personnel selection hiring, promotions, and so forth. Relationships among staff may reflect a “watch your back” attitude with benevolent authorianism [sic] coming from the top. The work orientation varies and may be a personal ori-

INTERPENETRATION OF CONTRADICTING STRUCTURES

159

entation of what one must do to please the higher-ups or what one can get by with. Productivity is often based on personal considerations of the job. There may be high competition to become favored by one’s supervisor or, based on the personal relationships, work may be mediocre or substandard. (p. 43)

All of our descriptions (chaps. 2 to 5) of difficulties and problems expressed by our respondents in both organizations seem to be reflected here.

CONCLUSION The interpenetration of contradictory cultural structures in predominantly African-American organizations results in a myriad of dysfunctional outcomes that we have labeled the divergent organization. Chapters 3 and 4 have explicated this phenomenon of divergence, provided copious examples from the data, and linked the phenomena in our data sets to several bodies of theoretic and historical work. Chapter 5 continues to document the phenomena, identifying the communicative downward spiral that is associated with organizational divergence.

C H A P T E R

5 The Divergent Organization’s Communicative Downward Spiral

DIFFICULTIES IN COMMUNICATION PROCESSES To develop an understanding of specific communication difficulties unique to predominantly African-American organizational systems, the interview data from the human service organization were examined for particular patterns of difficult interaction. In addition to the interpenetration of contradictory structures, a complex array of forces combine to produce difficulties that are further exacerbated by this difficult blend of cultures. These forces include contradictions within the structures, variation in choices as to how to enact the structures, and other forces such as internal competition over resources, incompatible goals between coalitions, and cultural change. Our primary data set reveals three sets of difficulties in communication processes that are validated by the secondary data set. These three sets of difficulties can be seen as cyclical, each leading to another so that organizational members fall prey to a continually escalating downward spiral—often being powerfully and unavoidably (usually unknowingly or unwillingly) drawn into a process set in motion by interaction predating their own involvement. The three types of difficulties in communication processes are unresolved conflict, immobilization, and erosion of both the organizational system and human development. Intractable issues manifest in conflict (ranging from suppressed disagreement to open warfare), which remains unresolved; the repetition of unresolved conflicts immobilizes and paralyzes organizational members, ultimately leading to deterioration of the system. Each of these types of difficulties can occur in varying degrees. At first glance, the three processes appear to be simultaneous; indeed, they are all 160

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

161

occurring all the time. However, upon deeper reflection, their sequencing becomes clear, and the starting point increasingly becomes arbitrary. Organizational members are clearly immobilized by their inability to work through a variety of different kinds of conflict. Their immobilization just as clearly leads to their diminished capacity to achieve goals and thus to decline of the organizational system, their own, and others’ development. The erosion of the organizational system and the downturn in human development in turn engenders more intractable conflict. And so on. The spiral has the nature of a communicational whirlpool. As the vortex revolves, it spins ever faster and ever more tightly, drawing more and more organizational members into the irresistible force of its grip as the system of interaction is produced and reproduced and thus becomes entrenched in the organizational culture. Figure 5.1 displays the negative cycle typical of the divergent organization. Using excerpts from the human service organization interview data, validated by data from the school, we show how each of these three steps in the cycle can be illustrated. Following this illustration, using each of these steps of the spiral in turn, we provide more holistic examples from the data where the entire cycle can be seen. Unresolved conflict, whether voiced or suppressed, is seen as the focal point of the cycle. Before providing examples from the data, we describe the process by which the four problematics described in chapter 2 (see Fig. 2.1) interact in the face of divergence (interpenetration of contradictory structures) to produce the downward spiral. Interaction of the Problematics in the Context of Divergence In particular, the unresolved conflicts that serve to immobilize organizational functioning most readily are those that rest in the area of interpersonal communication. The central importance of the problematic of commu-

FIG. 5.1. The downward spiral of communication processes.

162

CHAPTER 5

nication/interpersonal dynamics in generating the downward spiral is intricately interrelated with the African-American rules/resources of relational orientation and humanism. As previously discussed, there is high value placed on respect, dignity, the importance of self-worth, and the realization of self-worth in organizational work processes. It is extremely important for organizational members to be spoken to with respect, and it is a necessity that communication processes give credence to this important value. Employees’ perceptions (whether accurate or inaccurate) that their voices or rights have been disregarded often lead to unresolved conflict and thus become a significant trigger for a decline in the function of organizational processes. It is important to note here that African Americans in the workforce have long survived the atrocities of racial discrimination and discriminatory practices. The culture has survived against the odds, and its members have demonstrated exceptional measures of excellence across disciplines and in every occupation from the service industry to presidential cabinets. Excellence in performance was expected because to remain in the workforce African Americans have been perpetually faced with having to be better than their European-descended counterparts (this is further discussed later). African Americans have extensive experience with difficulty and strife; difficulty and strife within a system are thus not the obstacles or barriers that produce the most organizational difficulty. Rather, it is the experience or perception of not being included, of not being heard, respected, or recognized for how one functions and performs in the organizational context that becomes disruptive to organizational functioning. The data consistently point to the need for organizational members in both data sets to be respected and appreciated. This consistent theme (embedded in the problematic of cultural identity/human development) is more deeply understood through the recognition that the forced labor of slavery and gravely disproportionate discriminatory practices in the workplace have led the African-American organizational member to a belief in the “myth of homecoming,” addressed previously. Simply put, she or he expects that within the predominantly African-American institution she or he will not need to tolerate or engage behavior or management protocols that are disrespectful or discriminatory at any level. When respectful communication dynamics are absent, particularly in relationships with managers, and the organizational member perceives that she or he is unable to adequately address his or her concerns without retribution, the frustration resulting from being unable to resolve conflict and the suppression of unarticulated conflict create tension over time. The most damaging conflicts are those that occur between managers and employees regarding both covert and overt issues of power, authority, and control. The resulting tension—produced by and producing an organizational climate that ignores the

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

163

value of humanism relative to communication interaction—occurs as the two problematics previously mentioned here (communication/interpersonal dynamics and cultural identity/human development) impact and are impacted by the problematics of leadership/management and power/authority/control. Organizational processes slow down and can become immobilized, and erosion occurs within the system. The systemic functioning now creates cognitive dissonance regarding previous organizational experiences with predominantly White organizations (reviewed later); the expectation is that such discriminatory practices as verbal disregard should not occur within the African-American system. Such treatment has been tolerated in the predominantly White organization given an understanding of racism and exclusionary tactics of the dominant culture. However, there is no tolerance for its presence in the predominantly African-American organization, and unresolved conflict is perpetuated. As members of the same culture, African Americans have collectively understood racial struggles, and facing such indignities in the AfricanAmerican organization is difficult. The pattern of unresolved conflict and the downward spiral that ensues can be seen as arising from the interaction of the four problematics (see Fig. 2.1) in the face of divergent rules/resources (see chap. 4). Unresolved Conflict Unresolved conflict can be observed on two very important dimensions: first, interpersonal conflict, those conflicts that emerge between manager and employee or between coworkers; second, institutional conflict, those conflicts that occur when an organizational member differs with policies and procedures, particularly regarding how policies are implemented. Issues regarding salary inequity, financial difficulties, power struggles between groups, and spending on management perks are major areas of unresolved conflict in our data. Again, those issues that manifest in interpersonal conflict are most likely to engender the downward spiral. Following are a few exemplars of unresolved conflicts in the data sets: [To] stand for the voiceless of [organization name] is critical because of personal vendettas and department wars. (Interview 6) Employee morale is down because of inequities. Unresolved problems continue brewing for years (such as salary inequities). (Interview 7) Salary and compensation inequities with [department] staff. No raises given for work performed in years. (Interview 10) Printout for [specific task] are not being retrieved on a timely basis and this inefficiency often backlashes affects the [department] because [other de-

164

CHAPTER 5

partment] is not holding up their end. History of battles between [these two departments] is ongoing. (Interview 11) There is often no equality across the board in terms of compensation and that creates morale problems too. . . . History of abuse can’t change how people feel here, but must strive to move to a different level changing the ambience of the [organization] and the coexistence of those at the bottom. (Interview 16) Catering to one set of people (e.g., Whites and Filipinos). . . . Black [employees] not given equal opportunity to do [specific technical task] vs. Filipinos. . . . Division and power struggles between groups (especially [particular department]) must stop. (Interview 32) Too many double standards across departments. (Interview 47) Inconsistency in how people are treated. Leadership shows preference for males vs. females. . . . Payroll issues need to be addressed with the seriousness that is expected as a priority. (Interview 50) [Challenge:] Not having a copy machine for teachers to use. (Interview 63) You don’t know if you’re going to get paid. No one seems to care if you’re going to get paid. . . . Just received books a couple of weeks ago. Did not have books when school started, had to make copies with my own money. You can’t get copies in a timely fashion. Copies get lost, half done, lost. You don’t want to leave [original copy] because it will disappear. . . . [Challenge:] favoritism. . . . Dealing with teachers—pay is important. [It’s like the administration doesn’t] care about the issue. (Interview 65) [Challenge:] Not having relevant supplies (pencil sharpeners, pencils, paper—just got those). Resources are limited. (Interview 66) Would like to see all staff members of [school name] treated equally. (Interview 68) [Challenge:] We can’t make copies. (Interview 70) Clique-ish—[administrator] has favorites. Not equal (e.g. approving programs!) Gender issues. Allows men to do what they want. Women have to struggle. Supplies are low—teachers buy own supplies without reimbursement. . . . Don’t get paid on time. (Interview 78) A lot of favoritism. (Interview 80) [Challenge:] Copies. One person makes. They’ll get to it 3 weeks later. (Interview 83) Making copies can be a problem—creative teacher learns to use less paper. Only handouts. To use manipulatives is no problem. Copier abused— breaks down. Costs. Can’t afford to hire person for copier—person must be with students instead of high school kid to help [suggesting the school hire a high school student for this function]. (Interview 92) Staff really cares about kids. Not about money. 2–3 months with no pay. (Interview 94)

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

165

[Need a] new system for using copy machine. (Interview 106) [Challenge:] Copy machine system. (Interview 110)

Whereas the more mundane among these conflicts are common in any organization, in the divergent organization they fold into the cycle depicted in Fig. 5.1 to create intractable organizational downward communicative spirals. For example, at the school the inability to make photocopies is a conflict that runs far deeper than accomplishing the fundamental tasks at hand. It is about (among other things) power, concertive control, privilege, and lack of autonomy. Enforcing a “hands-off’ policy for the photocopier is easily rationalized as protecting the fragile aged machine. However, when we note that the conflict stems from a deterioration of physical resources, and then folds into immobilization (resentment, distrust), we see the cycle in action as the conflict deepens and becomes even more intractable. Teachers become increasingly frustrated and limited as their professional autonomy is increasingly constrained by the evolving autocratically restrictive policies that enfold into further intractable conflict over photocopying, ad infinitum. The mundane has become asphyxiating. Immobilization Immobilization is, by definition, an inability to achieve movement. Immobilization exists along a continuum and is manifested in a variety of ways, from passive resistance (simply not doing work) to a frustrated sense of paralysis. Some individuals feel immobilized only in one or two areas, whereas others feel more totally trapped and paralyzed. In addition, we find immobilization in the system itself. Following are examples of commentary from the human service organization that point to this phenomenon at both the individual and systemic levels. Individual level: [I] have not accomplished anything or made a difference since employed here. (Interview 1) [I am] in a liminal place. Circumstances have affected my home. I’ve become apathetic to the circumstances. [An article is] helping me to cope and deal with [organization name] with some immunity. [This is the] best position for me in order to persevere in unhealthy situation. Very difficult to understand, but that is where I am right now. (Interview 2) [It is extremely important to note here that this comment represents the entirety of the interview with this individual—an indication of the depth of this person’s immobilization by the system.] Any attempts of presenting information of employees’ burdens are stonewalled. . . . I feel like my skills are being wasted here. Skills becoming

166

CHAPTER 5

dormant and future promotion in other institutions may not be forthcoming. (Interview 6) Supervisor for [department] is not given any authority to make decisions. Nitpicking of managers is intolerable and immobilizes them to do a good job and gain respect from their employees. . . . Disrespect for managers’ area of expertise by executive managers is frustrating. Sometimes is pointless being a manager when one is paralyzed to function. (Interview 11) Manager feels paralyzed to make decisions with no support and or reprimand regarding standard policy and procedures. (Interview 12) Manager who has vision and advocate for the employees is stonewalled and given no support. . . . Senior management talks to employees in a roundabout way instead of directly addressing the issues and taking action to resolve. (Interview 22) [Employees of particular department feel] voiceless and director don’t listen or want to deal with the people. . . . [Specific employees] quit because they’re unsettled and unclear about . . . standards [relevant to their area]. (Interview 35) People feel they can’t express their opinion without their head being on a chopping block. (Interview 40)

Systemic level: No open enrollment on health package because consensus is not reached in decision making around the table; everyone wants to give their individual opinion which interferes with important decision making. Leads to frustration and a no-win situation. (Interview 1) Administration only seems to act when things meet crisis proportions instead of managing and servicing continually. (Interview 14) [Administration] motto has been “if people don’t like it at [organization name] they can leave.” The mindset has been one of indifference. (Interview 15) Employee orientation given 2 months after hired, yet expected to function efficiently. Didn’t receive employee ID badge until two weeks after employed. [Another] employee is now employed two months and yet to receive ID. (Interview 37) We’re being deceived. We are seemingly at a standstill. The [organization] is not going forward. Something is wrong. No business is being generated. (Interview 40) Sometimes can’t handle incoming calls because of backlog . . . and already stressful situation of dealing with belligerent/irate [clients who have been kept waiting too long]. (Interview 44) When someone indicates they are leaving, no plan is set in place to replace or train another to fill the duties for the area. (Interview 45)

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

167

[We are] unable to get raises as dedicated and hard-working people who care about [organization name]. (Interview 47)

Even clients can be immobilized by the human service organization’s negative image: People come in with a negative image of the [organization] and therefore expect and demand a certain level of treatment for services. Irrespective if the administrators [and staff] are nice to the [client], they always find something wrong with the service/treatment to complain about. . . . [We need to get] beyond the negative concept and perceptions of the [organization’s] image in the community. (Interview 44)

In interviews from the school, we also see several examples of immobilized individuals. In this setting, immobilization tends to occur most prominently in communicative relationships, particularly in communication upward through the hierarchy. Many individuals related that they felt a lack of freedom in their communication with administration. This is strikingly similar to the “hit list” described previously. There was a strong feeling among several interviewees that they must be very careful in communicating with their superiors to protect themselves from “repercussions.” No one explained specifically what these repercussions would be, but it was clear to us that many of the people interviewed felt oppressed and were as a result immobilized in their upward communication. Communication is inferior and messed up. “I am not saying anything. I am protecting myself.” (Interview 2) Can’t communicate honestly with [administrator]; must be real careful how you say things. (Interview 3) Can’t trust administration (high, high). Want you to do activities, but complain when you do because they say you’re trying to get out of work— “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” (Interview 18) Sometimes administration not approachable, people intimidated. . . . Fearful of consequences—reticence is due to repercussions. (Interview 48) You feel things are held against you if you speak. (Interview 62)

Erosion of Organizational System and of Human Development Poor morale and paralysis arising from unresolved issues leads to a decline in human development and erosion of the organizational system. Individuals’ skills decline in such a system. The erosion in the human service organization’s system is quite severe. Respondents from both organizations cited examples of the physical plant being substandard in ways that inter-

168

CHAPTER 5

fere with adequate human performance. They also cited a severe lack of essential supplies and equipment, technological problems, and physical space problems. It must be clearly noted here that larger societal forces are in play, worsening physical facilities problems and technological issues. These organizations, like all predominantly African-American organizations, face the survival difficulties brought on by institutionalized racism and discriminatory practices of external dominant culture business constituencies, as they must depend on these outside forces for many goods and services. That being said, following are some exemplars of erosion at the individual and systemic level. Individual level: No opportunity for growth or advancement because we are so far behind in everything (technology, etc.). (Interview 5) Stress of the department has often led to personal illness, especially in the face of dedicated employees who are committed. . . . Stop the exodus of competent people with experience and knowledge who end up leaving because they are invalidated and or frustrated. (Interview 11) People don’t feel they are being paid what they are worth. Some have to take two buses and a train to get to work and have to coexist under an oppressive structure. (Interview 16) Need computer to maintain [specific data] for my area. (Interview 17) Working area conditions are very bad; hard to function in cramped space. (Interview 47)

Systemic level: No repeat clientele because of system failure. (Interview 4) Working conditions and environment [are] deplorable . . . and presents problems for [client services]. (Interview 5) Overall weakened systems suffocates the stronger divisions. Losing good people to this sick system. (Interview 6) [Specific piece of equipment] critically needed, current [one] is antiquated. (Interview 7) Need to paint. . . . Staff agreed to volunteer to beautify area; however, this request was not heeded [by management]. (Interview 12) Some people are afraid of change, but this place has run this way for so long it has to go up or down. Can’t continue this way. Things were left unserviced for so long it will take a lot of money to rebuild—not just when [external agency] comes in. (Interview 39) Need proper air circulation in this department; it gets so hot in the summertime the computers shutdown. (Interview 47)

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

169

Some respondents even made general observations about overall deterioration in the system. For example: Poor management for . . . years under past [several] administrations; the result is the [organization] started going downhill seven years ago. It keeps getting worse and worse. Past administration has run good [staff] off and it has gotten in bad shape. It’s a shame how the [executives have] allowed the [organization] to deteriorate. (Interview 34)

Although the difficulties are not as extensive, we see quite similar complaints in the school interviews: broken-down physical facilities, supply and equipment shortages, poor morale, and an unaddressed need for staff development. Not receiving adequate support with kids. The Special Ed people don’t come in the classroom like they should. Start to use accountability forms—one semester almost gone. (Interview 65) School morale—(very negative)—teachers feel beaten up by administration and parents. . . . School is old—broken heater/[not maintained]. Just recently hired new maintenance staff. . . . [Need] more programs for teacher training to better assist the children. (Interview 78) [Need] training for educational aides . . . on inclusion process. (Interview 101) Keep materials flowing—central administration. Cleaning supplies. Work orders too slow. [Building is] freezing. (Interview 104) [Need] more training for educational aides. (Interview 114) [Need] morale improvement. (Interview 116) [Need] working computers [and] textbooks. (Interview 117) [Need instructional] materials. (Interview 118)

Societal Forces. Again, it must be noted here as a crucial aside that it is also apparent that these organizations experience discriminatory actions of the dominant culture against minority organizations, making it difficult for them to thrive. The prejudicial influence of external dominant-culture business constituencies plays a large part in the systemic functioning of the predominantly African-American organization. Simply keeping the doors open is often a struggle in the face of discriminatory practices regarding finances and other economic endeavors of the African-American organization. This often provides ground for predominantly African-American institutions to be purchased by or merged with larger dominant-culture organizational systems, which, of course, accomplishes a diminishing of the presence of African-American organizations.

170

CHAPTER 5

The Downward Spiral In Fig. 5.1, we show three basic organizational communication processes creating a downward rather than upward spiral. The desirable cycle (addressed in chaps. 6 and 7) would be an upward spiral of negotiation of competitive interests and difficult interactions, leading to the attainment of organizational and individual goals, in turn leading to organizational and human development. In the divergent organization, however, we see that the competitive interests and difficult interactions that naturally occur in any organizational system often remain as unresolved conflicts. These unresolved conflicts often lead to some degree of immobilization rather than attainment of organizational and individual goals. As the negative cycle continues, immobilization leads to the erosion of organizational system and human development rather than successful organizational and human development. In downward spiral, such erosion of development often sets the stage for unresolved conflicts to continue and grow, which then lead to more immobilization, and so on. Following are some examples of commentary from the human service organization that reveal the entire cycle. One recurring conflict at the human service organization is intractable delays in making payments. This difficulty immobilizes the system, which then leads to decay of the system, which in downward spiral, makes fixing the initial problem that much more difficult: Transportation services are a big need. Try to establish a voucher system with taxi company, and they won’t accept because of [organization] credit. (Interview 13) Spend a lot of money on outside storage. Service sometimes unavailable because of credit hold, results in many delays in processing/completing the work. . . . And [executive manager’s] practices are intimidating. Don’t give the proper tools to managers to get work done; budget variances are not communicated, resource needs are not met, for example, computer equipment that we need desperately. (Interview 14)

A related recurring conflict is in the inability for departments to receive supplies on a regular or timely basis. This often results in departments operating on an intractable deficit. Ordering of supplies are cause for concern because of credit holds and these things are not communicated to us until a query is made about not receiving supplies. (Interview 11)

This severe lack of supplies creates what might be seen as a hoarding mentality, where staff members in some departments order supplies they do not need at the moment, in anticipation of a later shortage. The employees

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

171

who provide supplies are aware of this pretense, so they refuse to comply (immobilization). Relations become strained (erosion of human development). Future orders for truthfully needed supplies go unfilled (conflict recurs). One employee identified as a critical issue . . . employees playing games about supplies [that] are fully present in their department; this causes unnecessary stress. (Interview 47)

The overarching recurring issue of scarce resources is worsened by and perpetuates such negative cycles, as well. Because of scarce resources, things cannot be accomplished, and progress cannot be made. The system deteriorates, and people are put down. Yet, no resources are made available for them to solve the problems for which they are being blamed. Limited financial resources create communication problems. For example, the phone system is inadequate; power outages, unable to use backup system because outdated wiring is unable to accommodate the alternative system. . . . Educational area: no resources, people, or equipment, yet comments are made that [employees in specific area] are incompetent, yet no support for what one is trying to do. No supplies or computer equipment provided or decent space to have educational programs. . . . Unaddressed problems also promotes unskilled workforce; not up-todate for working anywhere else. (Interview 5) Employees are already limited with inadequate resources, to be beaten down in addition to this creates low self-esteem, affects employees’ dignity and morale. (Interview 6)

One particular department has ongoing conflict with upper management regarding its function. Coupled with a recurring conflict about the lack of physical space, an intractable cycle is set in motion. Does not function like a [unit of this type should]. Should work closely with management but don’t. Would like to provide training, however no space to do so. (Interview 1)

We observed several of these types of recurring conflicts between departments regarding job functions and divisions of labor. Oftentimes, neither side of the dispute accomplishes the task, so it remains unfinished. Resulting delays erode the functioning of individuals and the system, which in turn fosters resentment that deepens the conflict. [Work is] not picked up because certain divisions feel “it is not their job” causes delay in [specific department clients] scheduled for services. . . . Workflow must be improved. . . . (Interview 12)

172

CHAPTER 5

Managers need to be carrying their own area instead of expecting [the department] to be the be all and end all of the [organization]. It’s overwhelming and causes burnout. (Interview 13) [Specific department] not adequately supplied and shortstaffed, run out of [basic essential supplies] regularly. [Other department] uncooperative about administering [particular services]. Impedes [specific type staff] . . . impacts how well they can function and how productive they can be. (Interview 28) Extra stresses—power struggles. [Specific department] does not supply [specific supply] promptly. [Employee] has to do legwork and retrieve [supply] themselves, consequently these extra runnings slows down the process of already overloaded [client services] schedule. . . . [Specific department] has to be reskilled and retooled. Insist on being bureaucratic/ belligerent about simple completion of paperwork. “This is not my job.” [Employees] have to leave their stations to come downstairs to fill in minute details. (Interview 29)

Previously, we discussed the recurring conflict of inequities in the system. Upper management’s mode that several workers called “managing by intimidation” (which can be seen as a result of the clash between cultural structures, also discussed previously) then functions to immobilize the system, resulting in further breakdowns. [I] backed away from talking with managers because of being grilled and called on the carpet for attempting to bring some equity to an unjust system. People’s perception is that management operates and is guided by fear and paranoia. “Firing at will” seems to be a motto. Too many fired too quickly without a visible process. At times, a lot of employee resistance necessitated this. (Interview 1) Employee morale is down because of inequities—unresolved problems continue brewing for years like salary inequities with newly hired employees. (Interview 7)

The negative cycles of unresolved conflict, immobilization, and erosion of human development and of the system have pitched the organization’s administration into a mode of crisis management, marked by oppressive practices, which is in itself a form of this same downward spiral. Two middle managers’ (interviewed together) lengthy commentary is an excellent summary of this phenomenon. Administration is busy with crisis management. We tend to be reactive instead of proactive. Band-Aid short-term problems, fix it for the minute, then when it don’t work we just move onto the next problem instead of reviewing the original problem to find solutions. We expect people to work with no merit increase and no scheduled plan for action, and to re-

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

173

spond at the drop of a hat. Submitted requests to senior management are not addressed—only when things get out of hand. How can I have the responsibility and not the authority? Manager has no authority to fix/solve problems. Things are thrust upon them and they are expected to carry it out, no question asked. Managers are in the throes of day-to-day problems, yet input is not respected to provide the solution for the problem, but when the problem reaches crisis proportions the managers are blamed. This leads to frustrations and conflict/tension in the division. [Some staff] don’t have a clear-cut understanding of the internal problems of vital departments. They expect the [basic equipment] to work or that we should have certain supplies because we are credit hold, [specific type staff] bawl out employees for these deficiencies. [These staff] become angry at the managers for these deficiencies instead of addressing administration for these problems. Internal lethargy/apathy is very apparent in unit managers. (Interview 15)

The highly authoritarian management mode that results becomes itself a source of intractable conflict that kicks off yet another spiral: [Extended work hours] are given without any notice, discussion, or commiseration. If you speak out you’re seen as uncooperative and/or insubordinate. We feel in bondage here. One has to assume a posture of passivity here because you’re placed on a hit list if you speak out. (Interview 33) Threatening of employees by management through intimidation just allows [organization] to go into a deeper hole. (Interview 47)

In chapter 4 we discussed at some length the interpenetration of contradictory rules/resources (see Tables 1.1 and 3.2) related to such management modes in both organizations. The dialectical tension between group and individual motivations identified by Hecht et al. (1993) can again clearly be seen in the data from the human service organization. As previously discussed, just as respondents express strong desire for group involvement and a deep commitment to the (Black) community, they strongly decry a lack of individual recognition and appreciation. This dialectic is manifested in the downward spiral, most visibly in the erosion of the organizational system and of individual development (Fig. 5.1). An unfulfilled need to be appreciated immobilizes; employees lose motivation and begin to question the reasons for producing or working hard; their work quality and quantity decreases; individual human development becomes stunted and organizational goals go unmet. This then cycles back into more conflict episodes of the same nature, as individuals may be brought to task for not producing, complain that work goes unrewarded so “why bother,” and so on. Similarly, the dialectical tension between realism and positivity manifests in the downward spiral. These dialectics explain some respondents’

174

CHAPTER 5

deep loyalty to the organization (the problematic of cultural identity and human development) even in the face of deeply embedded unresolved conflicts that immobilize and lead to declines in organizational and individual human development (see Fig. 5.2). In chapter 2, in our description of the problematic of cultural identity and human development, copious examples from the data can be found to document respondents’ loyalty and commitment to the organization. Even though they complain of poor conditions and disrespectful treatment, many members of both organizations remain loyal. This loyalty stems from a strong cultural imperative to persevere, because it is an African-American organization, for the perpetuity of AfricanAmerican culture. It must be noted that we observed a distinct “old guard/ new guard” structure in both organizations; both have high turnover, yet also have long-term employees who are loyal to the organization and deeply committed to its mission. Turnover seems to occur among newer employees, which over time deepens this “old/new” divide.

THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE In the predominantly African-American organization with a European-based form/design, structures (rules and resources) and commonly understood practices for achieving negotiation, goal attainment, and development are internally contradictory because of the interpenetrating contradictory structures. Figures 3.1 and 5.1 represent the resulting organizational culture as an interpenetration of incongruent structures and the ways that those structures are enacted in contradictory social practices that lead to a destructive cycle of unresolved conflict, immobilization, and erosion of the organizational system and of human development. The structures produced in interaction are difficult blends of the contradictory structures that are not reproductions of either structure, but rather are entirely new structures that do not provide for healthy or productive organizational function; this is the divergent organization. The emergent organizational culture of the divergent organization, as in Fig. 2.1, drives and is driven by the four central problematics discussed earlier. Thus, Fig. 5.1 can replace the center of Fig. 2.1, resulting in a more whole picture of human communication in a predominantly African-American organizational system with traditional European cultural organizational design/form. See Fig. 5.2. The placement of the inner and outer rings in this still picture of a phenomenon in motion are meant to depict the most salient placement of the downward spiral of communication in relation to the four problematics. The center of the model is depicted as rotating counterclockwise, while the problematics on the outer edge of the model are depicted as rotating in all directions, three-dimensionally. The flat, still depiction allowed by the me-

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

175

FIG. 5.2. Human communication in the predominantly African-American organization with traditional U.S. corporate organizational form/design.

dium of print leaves this model regrettably oversimplified. The rings in the model would more accurately be displayed as layered spheres, like the rings or layers of an onion; the rotation of both layers would more adequately be depicted as fluid in all directions around the center simultaneously. Our intent in this two-dimensional depiction is to show a snapshot of a highly complex, constantly moving, cultural, human, organizational system. The rotation of the inner and outer circles is meant to depict simultaneous, multidirectional fluidity that also shows the four problematics and the three basic processes of the downward spiral as all simultaneously and inextricably intertwined. As discussed before, the processes that we describe as problematics in chapter 1 (Relationship/Task Orientation, Communication/Interpersonal Dynamics, Cultural Identity/Human Development, Leadership/Management, and Power/Authority/Control) are interconnected with one another and with the three communication difficulties in the downward spiral (Unresolved Conflict, Immobilization, and Erosion of Organizational System and Human Development). The problematics arise from relational and task orientations that invoke structure into system, and play out through interaction. Indeed, there are several places in the primary data set where this holistic set of phenomena can be seen simultaneously. In our first example, a group of four middle managers provide the following commentary that specifically mentions communication, relationships

176

CHAPTER 5

(respect and appreciation), employee development and community connections, management activities, and power/authority/control issues. We can also see recurring conflict with administration regarding the role of managers leading to low morale and the breakdown of policies and procedures that deteriorate organizational functioning. In particular, we find it interesting that these individuals specifically referenced a dysfunctional cycle of managers undermining one another: People are not respected or appreciated or treated as though they matter. Middle manager of this area does not manage adequately. Result of mismanagement has caught up with every area of the [organization]: deterioration, low morale, policies and procedures are not in place. Present administration has curtailed communication significantly. Got rid of [specific category of employees] upon the recommendation of prior consultants, who knew nothing of the community’s needs. Employees think that the executive group is working to close the [organization]. Managers are divided, don’t communicate, caught in a cycle of undermining one another, very dysfunctional. [Executive manager] seems to run [specific department]. . . . Seemingly wants managers to compromise their position with their employees. (Interview 5)

In another stream of commentary from an individual interview with a middle manager we see several examples of the downward spiral of unresolved conflict, immobilization, and deterioration of the organizational and human systems. In describing difficulties in the system, this manager specifically references managerial activities, professional identity (resentment of decisions made by those without proper expertise), organizational commitment, communication, relationship with superiors, and power/authority/ control issues: Work with outdated equipment which could be traded for modern ones, but hands are tied to make these requests, yet other insignificant equipment is being magnified. Managers are made to feel incompetent because of lack of resources to do a good job and then others outside the department, with[out appropriate technical] background, make decisions over supervisor; creates a lot of frustration. Urgent requests are held up on [executive manager’s] desk who questions them and often don’t approve it—with no basis or reference to [appropriate technical] background. Almost had to shut down the department because of lack of equipment for basic [tasks]. Managers’ requests are not addressed with respect and are often invalidated. . . . Stress of the department has often led to personal illness, especially in the face of dedicated employees who are committed. (Interview 11)

In another individual interview, another middle manager discusses similar issues:

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

177

[Executive manager] calls a division meeting for the first time to communicate reduction and conveys in a dehumanizing way that “if you cannot comply with these reductions, just attach your resignation to the request.” [Executive manager] very dehumanizing and threatening in communicating cost controls to division staff. [Executive manager] don’t hold division meetings to have creative engagement with his people. [Executive manager] should not be managing people. Don’t show no compassion or respect for people’s welfare and disrespects managers totally. It’s depressing, oppressive, and dehumanizing. [Executive manager]’s practices are intimidating; don’t give the proper tools to managers to get worked on. Budget variances are not communicated. Resource needs are not met, for example computer equipment that we need desperately. (Interview 14)

Here, we clearly see the cycle of unresolved conflict, immobilization, and deterioration. We also see direct references to communication, organizational identification, managerial activities, relationship/task orientation, and (especially) power. An interview with two other middle managers, interviewed together, resulted in the following stream of notes: Senior management lack integrity and credibility. Many managers are hardworking, but they lack the resources and equipment to do an adequate job. Manager’s decisions are not valued or supported, are many times overturned by [executive manager]; they get no respect. For example, [manager]’s suspension of [an employee] was overturned by [executive manager]. . . . All the good people are leaving. [Name] resigned today—a pillar of [department name]. [Another name] suspended and then fired at will of manager of [department] over personality conflicts with [executive manager]. Cutbacks are being made to people at the bottom who are already dedicated, talented, and frustrated because they are already not compensated for their work. (Interview 15)

Here, the chief complaint seems to be abuses of power in decision making within the recurring conflict of the role of the manager. We also see, however, references to task orientations, organizational loyalty/identification, immobilization, decline of human development (people leaving), and communication and relational dynamics (respect as crucial issue). We see similar patterns from interviews with regular employees as well: [Recommendation:] replace [an executive manager] with someone with a better vision, who is compassionate, caring, and action-oriented and unafraid of interacting with their own community. People want to deal directly/proactively with issues (e.g., [executive manager]’s approach to salary inequities are trivialized—equated circumstance to cars and animals) vs. discussing the mission/state of affairs of [organization]. [We

178

CHAPTER 5

need to provide] the “Cadillac of Services” that we say we are promoting. Support and appreciate employees across the board, irrespective we are working for little money. Stop the lies and contradictions with employees. Do what is just, reward good and reprimand evil. Treat people with respect and dignity. [Individual interview.] (Interview 22)

This individual is making a clear cry for management based in both relationship and task orientations, that is more closely connected to the Black community. This person also mentions the recurring conflict of salary inequities, referencing indirectly that this has not been dealt with directly (indicating some degree of immobilization on this issue). This interviewee clearly states that goals are not being met (“Cadillac of Services” not provided) and that power is being abused (“stop the lies and contradictions”). Finally, this person invokes the values of respect and dignity—so prevalent in these data—in characterizing the desired interpersonal dynamic. This entire process is again echoed in a group interview with other regular employees: Management’s disorganization causes more stress in department for workers. Everyone should be able to pull their own weight. No administrative support when concerns are voiced. Manager’ s approach is not always in a manner that is appropriate. When employee responds negatively they are reprimanded. Employees are daily interrupted from routine project spontaneously and are given other directions without being asked in advance. Lack of organization, direction, and disrespect from management. [Recommendation:] senior management [should] show more respect and appreciation for employees’ talents and abilities. (Interview 25)

Here again, we see a complaint about being controlled from above. The recurring conflict over the manager’s role surfaces in the managerial relationship with employees in this case. Employees feel disorganized and stressed and unable to complete their tasks. In their interpersonal communication dynamics with their manager, they feel disrespected. These employees invoke a relationship- and task-oriented work ethic grounded in organizational identification (pulling one’s own weight).

BRIEFLY REVISITING HISTORY: SOME UNDERPINNINGS OF THE SYSTEM AS DEPICTED Figure 5.2 depicts human communication in the predominantly AfricanAmerican organization with traditional U.S. corporate organizational form/ design. The mottled triangle/circle in the center reflects the organizational culture created by the traditional U.S. corporate organizational form/de-

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

179

sign’s and its interpenetration with the African-American cultural system. A brief reminder of African-American organizational history, as overviewed in chapter 4, is warranted here. Historically, human and interpersonal relationships are foundational to African-American culture, and in a predominantly African-American system this cultural phenomenon is apparent and overt. The culture of relationship is, in part, rooted in the African values of Nommo and orature (reviewed in chap. 2), which became even more firmly rooted by slavery and postslavery African-American experiences (also discussed in chap. 4). Unable to read or write English and forbidden by law (in most states) to learn, the African in America early cultivated the natural fascination with nommo, the word, and demonstrated a singular appreciation for the subtleties, pleasures, and potentials of the spoken word, which has continued to enrich and embolden his history. Thus, in part because of strict antiliteracy laws during slavery, vocal communication became, for a much greater proportion of blacks than whites, the fundamental medium of communication. Orature, the total oral tradition of Africans and African Americans, provides a comprehensive corpus of work for examination. (Asante, 1987, p. 3)

In the African-American organization, then, it is not unusual to find, for example, that many tasks governing the production of work are accomplished by great reliance on interpersonal communication interaction and by making personal oral contact. For example, going to a person’s office and talking with the person is often utilized rather than an e-mail or memo. We are not suggesting that African-American organizations do not use written or other technological channels of communication. However, we do mean that the oral communication that forms relationships and allows interactants to personally know one another is often quite instrumental, if not essential, to the performance of work. Relationship orientation and the practice of oral communication (the value of talk) are inextricably interwined. This reliance on interpersonal relations and talk is also interrelated with the humanismobjectification divergence. Such reliance on interpersonal contact is in sync with the communal nature of the African-American cultural system and is also a behavioral response to the memory of slavery, most notably seen in the connection between the contemporary manager and the overseer (see chap. 4). The position of overseer focused on task only, and from this position communication was usually one-way—the slave being in the lesser respected position. This relationship lacked equity in how the worker/slave was communicatively and relationally engaged. We see a clear link between the dynamics of the overseer–slave relationship and the dynamics of the superior–subordinate relationship in the contemporary African-American organization— particularly as they manifest in micromanagement. The manager–employee relationship is often stifled by the employee perception that she or he is

180

CHAPTER 5

not being communicated with respectfully and is not being treated with equity in the interpersonal relationship. In this relationship we observe unmistakable traces of the overseer and slave. Respondents in the study consistently make such statements as these: Manager’s approach is not always in a manner that is appropriate. When employee responds negatively, they are reprimanded. (Interview 25) When one speaks out you’re being set up to be fired. (Interview 1) No appreciation for work done: “just do what I tell you to do.” (Interview 20) Treated as subordinate or object in an oppressive manner. (Interview 33)

In these examples, it is how the communication is delivered that lacks respect. The inference, “I am over you and have the power to speak to you in this manner” and that relational implication, are resented. These are conscious or unconscious reminders of plantation work life, and the employees are demanding more equity in relationships via communication that is more respectful. Thus, interpenetration of the traditional (Eurocentric) organizational structure and the African-American cultural system creates divergence in, among other places, negotiating leadership and management protocols. There is a resultant communication difficulty—undergirded by the culturally inappropriate use of power, authority, and control—that diminishes organizational and individual goal attainment. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate the pattern that typically emerges after an extended period of time where organizational members cannot resolve and eventually do not even articulate perceived conflicts. This ultimately leads to a system that has gradually become immobilized, with organizational practices impeded by unresolved, often unarticulated, conflict. The organizational system then suffers from erosion. In time, these processes become cyclical in nature and very difficult to deconstruct. The preponderance of oppressive messages embedded positionally in the organizational structure and in organizational authority are complicated by employees’ reluctance to speak. And their reticence occurs not because they are incapable of addressing their concerns, but rather is dictated by personal need for economic survival and the uncertainty that comes from knowing that the expected reprisals would not be in their best interests. CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCES Certainly, some of these communication patterns in Fig. 5.2—the problematics and the downward spiral—are not unique to predominantly AfricanAmerican organizations or even to vertically hierarchically designed organizations. However, the character of, and explanation for, these patterns is

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

181

culturally unique to this organizational type. Having documented patterns of communication phenomena in predominantly African-American organizations with European culturally-based form/design does not suffice. The literature on predominantly African-American organizations and the Afrocentric literature, reviewed previously, provide a great deal of insight, particularly regarding the rules/resources identified in the data for African-American culture and the ways in which these interpenetrate in contradictory ways with the rules/resources of Eurocentric organizational design. The literature on African-American communication in predominantly White corporations also provides some explanation of these phenomena. Like other persons of color, Americans of African descent have a great deal of experience interfacing with Eurocentrically designed institutions. Historically, such institutions have been neither welcoming nor friendly to the African-American employee, customer, or citizen. A great many African-American individuals approach a predominantly African-American organizational system with the expectation that things will be different there. This “myth of homecoming” discussed earlier, engenders difficulties, of course, because these expectations are not realized. In addition, however, as we argue throughout this volume, the difficulties can be explained by the interpenetration of contradictory structures between African-American culture and Eurocentric organizational form. Hence, it is important to understand the AfricanAmerican experience in the predominantly White organizational world both as a frame to understand the reality our respondents have come to expect in predominantly White organizational and institutional systems and as evidence of the interpenetration of contradictory cultural structures as organizational members unexpectedly—and unknowingly—encounter Eurocentric cultural structures in predominantly African-American organizations. The African-American organizational experience can be traced back, as we have previously shown, to the forced immigration of the slave trade and then plantation life. Here, we limit our discussion to the contemporary (post-Civil Rights era) organizational experience of African-Americans, focusing specifically on research that sheds light on communication dynamics. Of course, the vast majority of this literature deals with predominantly White organizations. We now examine literature on African-American members of predominantly White corporations. Then, we delve into a brief review of literature on African-Americans and school/educational organizations.

AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNICATION IN PREDOMINANTLY WHITE CORPORATIONS There is yet very little literature that critically examines the corporate experiences of African-American organizational members in general, let alone research that focuses on African-American organizational communication.

182

CHAPTER 5

Alderfer and Thomas (1988) provide a thorough review of the literature on “racial and ethnic studies” with organizations. They divide the literature into three bodies: business studies, military studies, and public school studies. In all three of these areas all of the research they cite focuses on patterns of discrimination and objective (Eurocentric) indicators of AfricanAmerican organizational members’ “success” in predominantly White organizational systems. Although there is a sizable literature on African-American culture and communication and a less sizable but certainly present literature on African Americans in organizations, there appears to be a profound dearth of research on African-American culture and communication as it relates to organizational life. Indeed, even in the diversity literature, we find very little attention focused on multicultural challenges within U.S. organizations (Bowman, 1991), and that literature, as observed by Alderfer and Thomas (1988), persists in its focus on measures of progress in reducing structural barriers to equal opportunity. We do not mean here to suggest that such research is not valuable, just that it does not shed much light on the processes under investigation herein. The organizational dynamics of African-American culture and communication remains a largely uncharted area. The overwhelming Eurocentrism of social science research has had a profound impact on the content and direction of research. It is our contention that without unpacking the cultural bases of “the organization,” we cannot come to any understanding of the dynamics of the African-American organizational experience. Research appearing in the 1990s that addresses the African-American corporate experience also offers little insight into communication dynamics. This recent body of research, although rich in its own ilk, does not provide for our needs here. Research of the 1990s covers such topics as discriminatory attitudes toward African-American employees and potential employees; systems of opportunity; specific careers that offer opportunity to African-American workers; and African-American identity as it relates to work. Before embarking on our review, we would like to mention some of these works that are particularly notable; however, we will not provide detail, as we do not want to digress too far from our central purpose. Bates (1999) provides a rich historical account of racism and discrimination in attitudes toward African-American employees by focusing particularly on the history of the Pullman Porter and the perceptions that ensue about appropriate position and servitude. Collins (1993) focuses on racespecific programs of recruitment and education, such as Affirmative Action, examining systems and structures of opportunity, job security, and job enhancement for African-American workers, particularly executives. Hall and Stevens (1997) explore community access to health, health care, and health care provider education; appeal to African-American men to consider ca-

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

183

reers in nursing; and articulate potential effects of an alliance between African-American men and the nursing profession in diminishing structural racism in the United States. Finally, Spraggins (1999) examines the relationship between systemic oppression and structural racism and expressions of African-American masculinity. The body of research on African-Americans related to organizations and working life is growing exponentially. We felt it was important to mention these particularly excellent pieces of research to provide the reader with a taste of what is beginning to appear in scholarly journals. Still, we find precious little that focuses on the dynamics of communication and culture for African-American organizational members and that provides insight into our own data. The remainder of this section provides a review of the important body of research that does exist. Triple Quandary. The “triple quandary framework” offers a rich perspective from which to understand the organizational experiences of African Americans. Bowman (1991) observes that traditional industrial/organizational psychology perspectives approached the organizational problems of African Americans “as of either marginal significance, or according to a deficit model” (p. 514). Citing several other works (Bowman, 1977; Boykin, 1983; Boykin & Toms, 1985; Cole, 1970; and Young, 1974), Bowman (1991) presents a “triple quandary framework” to conceptualize the unique organizational problems faced by African Americans. In organizational life, “African Americans must simultaneously negotiate through three distinctively different realms of experience—mainstream, culture, and minority” (p. 515). The mainstream quandary refers to the extent to which the lives of African Americans are shaped by mainstream American society. Young (1974) notes that survival and achievement largely depend on participating effectively in mainstream organizational systems. In addition, African-American children are socialized to value success in mainstream organizational roles (Boykin & Toms, 1985; Rose, 1982/1983). Thus, it is not surprising that African Americans’ hopes for achievement in family, educational, work, and civic organizations are similar to those of other ethnic groups in America and the world community. However, despite the common hopes, the achievement strivings of African-Americans in major organizational roles are much more often frustrated by persistent failure. (Bowman, 1991, pp. 515–516)

The mainstream quandary describes the daily dilemmas faced by AfricanAmerican organizational members as they strive for involvement and success in mainstream organizational roles in the face of discrimination and social barriers in educational and training systems that would prepare them

184

CHAPTER 5

to gain and maintain employment in mainstream organizations, as well as frequent rejection and often unfair poor performance ratings when they do obtain such employment. The culture quandary refers to the very negotiation of multiple cultures we discuss in previous chapters—that between the Eurocentrically based culture of organizational systems and the Afrocentrically based ethnic culture. Bowman (1991, 1985, 1989a, 1989b), resting his argument on that of Dubois (1903), suggests that the strength of African-American culture adaptively empowers individuals with a certain “bi-culturality” that allows effective negotiation between ethnic culture and mainstream organizational systems. This argument is somewhat upheld by Orbe’s (1998a; 1998b) research (reviewed later) on the ways in which members of underrepresented groups negotiate their way through mainstream organizational systems by consciously choosing strategies of separation, accommodation, or assimilation within aggressive, assertive, or nonassertive communication orientations. Bowman (1991), however, also summarizes the opposing viewpoint (espoused by Boykin & Toms, 1985): “For African-Americans the ‘attendant negotiational demands are inherently problematic’ because their indigenous cultural heritage is ‘antithetical to mainstream American cultural selfunderstanding.’ [Boykin and Toms] suggest that intractable cultural conflicts create serious problems for African Americans in mainstream organizations” (p. 517). In short, American organizations do not extend a principle of cultural pluralism to African Americans as they do for members of other ethnic groups. According to Bowman (1991), this selective racism has been blamed either on the nature of African and European cultures or on economic imperatives of slavery and subsequent systems of racial hegemony in America. Most probably, it is some combination of these factors, as we argue in this work. The third quandary in the triple quandary framework is the minority quandary, which refers to the participation of racial–ethnic minority group members in political activities (both organizationally and socially) that promote social change and/or individual achievement. Minority status may compel African Americans toward organizational activities on behalf of the group; such activities enable individuals to cope with more pervasive race and class inequities. To some degree, such minority group inequities challenge African Americans to look beyond individual ability to organizational roles to facilitate collective social change. (Bowman, 1991, p. 518)

African-American organizational members face a dilemma between cultural and political expectations that they engage in activities to promote social

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

185

change toward equal opportunity and participation and organizational constraints against such commitments to activism. The question for us becomes whether the triple quandary framework is fully applicable to the predominantly Black organization. Certainly, our basic premise of contradictory deep cultural structures lends itself to an application of the cultural quandary. When an organizational member’s indigenous culture clashes with the values inherent in the organizational structure, the individual is forced to engage in problem solving to manage the difficulties that ensue. Without a deep cultural understanding, the individual can be expected to turn to his or her indigenous problem-solving values, grounded in his or her own culture. Because these clash with the values in the structure of the organizational form, the result is likely to be a subversion of the form, which leads to dysfunctional outcomes. If indigenous values are not legitimized, the interculturally competent individual can consciously adapt his or her behavior to the expectations present in the system (accommodation). This is one explanation as to the reason that African Americans can find success in dominant culture organizational systems. African Americans in predominantly White organizations who adapt well to the expected communication styles of the White corporate world do so with a full consciousness of the accommodationist code-switching in which they engage (Dickens & Dickens, 1991; Orbe, 1998a, 1998b). If the indigenous ethnic values are legitimized in a culturally pluralistic setting, indigenous problem-solving skills are more likely to be successful because they are consciously applied in a multicultural environment. A cultural quandary that is hidden, or otherwise not apparent, could be the explanation behind the phenomenon of the downward spiral seen in our data. In a predominantly White organization, an African-American member will, to some degree, expect his or her indigenous values to conflict with the values inherent in the organizational structure. In a predominantly AfricanAmerican organization, the problem is mystifying to organizational members because they do not expect to find (and do not recognize) a cultural clash between the organizational system and their own cultural values. The fact that the organizational form/design is a European cultural artifact could contribute to a hidden cultural clash. This scenario could likely lead to a downward spiral. A problem surfaces, and problem-solving skills are applied that seem to the interactants to be appropriate to the setting. Because of the clash between the interpenetrating contradictory cultural structures, the problem-solving techniques applied by interactants do not function as intended. In response to this unintended consequence, interactants apply their skills much more forcefully (because these are the skills that still seem most appropriate to the setting), setting forth even more difficulty because of the unseen contradiction. Individuals become disappointed, damaged, demoralized, and dismayed at their rude awakening in discovering

186

CHAPTER 5

their expectation of “homecoming” to be unachievable. Unresolvable recurrent conflicts immobilize them. Immobilization ranges from benign apathy to enraged sabotage. The downward spiral is set in motion, becoming increasingly worse and eroding the organizational system. The mainstream quandary seems to be somewhat relieved by membership in a predominantly African-American organization. However, a strain on members can be seen as they wrestle with understanding failures of their own organizations in comparison to “mainstream” organizations. For example, one respondent at the human service organization described the consistent behavior of a particular staff person who is known to make issue with the dysfunction of the system. . . . sometimes [he] comes to the department and interrogates employees . . . ranting and raving, contrasting [organization name] to White institutions. (Interview 11)

Finally, the minority quandary seems also to be relieved at the individual level, but surfaces as the organizational entity takes on the role of cultural minority. For example, one member of the executive team (Interview 4) addressed this directly, observing that among employees there exists a “perception that the dominant culture’s resources are needed to provide us with some credibility.” S/he goes on to advocate that the organizational membership needs “a communal awareness with sense of pride to help us value our own system of care,” and s/he complains that “the physical structure of this facility is controlled by the dominant culture.” Co-Cultural Theory. Orbe’s (1998a, 1998b) research that builds and explores a co-cultural model offers insight to our present research. Although not restricted to African Americans, Orbe’s theoretic positioning of underrepresented group members and their lived experiences as the center of analysis demarginalizes that experience. His data provide a rich depiction of the day-to-day negotiation of communication, organizational role, and identity undertaken by “minority” members of dominant culture organizations. Co-cultural communication theory is based on the belief that the United States is a country of many cultures, each of which exists simultaneously within and apart from other cultures. The word co-culture is embraced over other terminologies to signify the notion that no one culture in our society is inherently superior to other coexisting cultures. . . . Because an assortment of co-cultures simultaneously exists in our society, co-cultural communication theory also is grounded in the notion that over time one co-culture (that of European-American heterosexual middle- or upper-class males) has acquired dominant group status in the major societal institutions (i.e., political, corporate, religious, and legal institutions) across the land. (Orbe, 1998b, p. 2)

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

187

The resulting marginalization of other co-cultures stems from the very domination of the underlying cultural structures that forms the premise of the present research. Embedded in a paradigm of hermeneutic phenomenology, Orbe (1998a, 1998b) examines descriptions of lived experiences provided by 27 people of color, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, women, and those from a lower socioeconomic status. He details a comprehensive set of communication orientations used by co-cultural group members in interaction with dominant culture members in organizational settings. These communication orientations are organized theoretically in a two-dimensional model. The two dimensions are preferred outcome and communication approach. Preferred outcomes are grouped into three categories: separation, accommodation, and assimilation. The important conceptual move in this work is that of centering the experience of the “other.” Clearly, Orbe’s co-researchers make choices about their communication practices based on “how (they believe) their communicative behavior affects their immediate and ultimate relationship with dominant group members” (Orbe, 1998b, p. 89). Members of marginalized co-cultural groups in organizational settings often consciously decide to enact communication practices intended to result in particular intercultural relationships. They enact communication practices to assimilate—to minimize cultural differences and fit in with dominant society; to accommodate—to focus “on the acceptance or inclusion of cultural differences as meaningful, valuable, and legitimate” (p. 92), incorporating the life experiences of each co-cultural group; or to separate—to “reject the notion of forming a common bond with dominant group members and other co-cultural groups . . . (and) to create and maintain separate group identities outside or in dominant structures” (p. 92). Communication approaches are grouped into three categories: aggressive, assertive, and nonassertive. An aggressive approach includes “those activities perceived as hurtfully expressive, self-promoting, and assuming control over the choices of others” (p. 105, emphasis in original). An assertive approach encompasses “self-enhancing, expressive behavior that takes into account both self and others’ needs” (p. 105). Finally, a nonassertive approach includes those practices “by which individuals are seemingly inhibited and nonconfrontational while putting the needs of others before their own” (p. 104, emphasis in original). The two dimensions, preferred outcome and communication approach, are arrayed in a 3 × 3 matrix, such that nine possible combinations occur: nonassertive assimilation, nonassertive accommodation, nonassertive separation, assertive assimilation, assertive accommodation, assertive separation, aggressive assimilation, aggressive accommodation, and aggressive separation. Twenty-eight specific communication practices are arrayed within these nine cells. Other factors that influence communication practices of co-cultural group members in dominant culture organizational set-

188

CHAPTER 5 TABLE 5.1 Orbe’s (1998b) Model of Co-Cultural Communication Orientations Preferred Outcome

Communication Approach

Separation

Accommodation

Assimilation Emphasizing commonalities Developing positive face Censoring self Averting controversy Extensive preparation Overcompensating Manipulating stereotypes Bargaining Dissociating Mirroring Strategic distancing Ridiculing self

Nonassertive

Avoiding Maintaining interpersonal barriers

Increasing visibility Dispelling stereotypes

Assertive

Communicating self Intragroup networking Exemplifying strengths Embracing stereotypes Attacking Sabotaging Others

Communicating self Intragroup networking Using liaisons Educating others Confronting Gaining advantage

Aggressive

tings include the individual’s field of experience, her or his particular abilities, the situational context, and the perceived costs and rewards of a particular behavior. Table 5.1 illustrates the model. Orbe’s (1998a, 1998b) data reveal a particular phenomenon at work in the process of co-cultural group members’ negotiating organizational systems embedded in dominant cultural structures. His data and emergent model offer powerful evidence to support our contention that U.S. organizational structures and systems are embedded in and suffused with European cultural structures. In terms of the applicability of his model to our particular data from a predominantly African-American organization, it is most particularly germane to the problematic of cultural identity and human development at both the individual and organizational levels. At the individual level, individuals assert their own cultural identities in varying degrees with varying objectives—much as seen in Orbe’s data. At the organizational level, respondents comment on the identity of the organization as a Black institution and the way that it fits into its social environment. (For examples from the data, see our discussion of the problematic of cultural identity and human development in chap. 2.) A Guide for Black Managers. Dickens and Dickens (1991) provide a prescriptive guide to corporate success for practicing Black managers. Although not grounded in communication theory, this work provides copious stories of the lived experiences of Black managers in White corporations that are rich with implications for communication theory. Based on interviews with Black managers, a four-phase model of career development was constructed; the model was then clarified and refined in training sessions

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

189

throughout the United States. “The four-phase structured model of development for black managers in white corporations identifies and organizes the experiences both of black managers and of other minorities in white environments. It provides a way to understand the personal dynamics that occur on the job” (Dickens & Dickens, 1991, p. xi, emphasis added). The book is decidedly prescriptive, a “how-to manual” for negotiating dominant culture organizational systems; however, examined critically from a stance grounded in communication theory, a wealth of understanding about communication and culture for African Americans in predominantly White organizations can be garnered. We do not find strong direct links between this body of work and specifics in our data. However, Dickens and Dickens’ work speaks directly to the interpenetration of incongruent cultural structures. The ways in which Black managers are advised to negotiate White organizational systems strongly suggests to us that our theoretic approach is appropriate. Dickens and Dickens’ work is reviewed here not for the insight it can provide for our data specifically, but as evidence of the interpenetration of contradictory structures between African-American culture and Eurocentric organizational forms and as a frame to understand the organizational world our respondents have come to expect in predominantly White organizational and institutional systems. The phases of the career development model are similar to stage models of organizational socialization that communication scholars consider seminal (notably, Jablin, 1987; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Dickens and Dickens’ (1991) four phases are Entry, Adjusting, Planned Growth, and Success. They describe the model as a closed-loop model, in that the phases repeat themselves. “After an individual reaches the Success Phase, a new cycle will begin with a major job change or reassignment to another organization” (p. 16). They also include a section entitled “Beyond Success,” where they describe a Job Mastery phase for “those who have developed beyond the developmental model to the advanced skills, attitudes, and emotions required to move beyond the middle-management levels in organizations and break through the ‘glass ceiling’ ” (p. 223). It is important to note that in this way, their model mirrors the very real experiences of African Americans (and other underrepresented group members) in dominant culture organizations: Intractable difficulties in career development are ever-present—beginning long before the “glass ceiling” of upper management advancement looms. Because of structural, systemic, and systematic racism and discrimination (both explicit and subtle) and because of cultural misunderstandings, many African-American employees in predominantly European-American organizations remain “glass ceilinged” at the entry level. It is precisely this phenomenon that Dickens and Dickens seek to remedy—with apparent success. Dickens and Dickens do not question whether racism exists in U.S. corporate America, they begin with the assumption that it does.

190

CHAPTER 5

Even the most cursory reading of the commentary offered by their respondents substantiates this assumption. For example, one of their Black managers tells this story: One of the white managers working with me was responsible for setting up programs to meet the different needs of women in the company. And he set up a group of managers to just . . . kind of be a resource to him. And he tried to keep me out of it. Yet he had some white outside consultants sitting in on the group. And I blew up at him! Because I asked him, “How can you not have me in this group?” See, all along, the guy had been potshotting at me anyway because I was getting noticeable results with my programs and he wasn’t. I’d been telling my boss that he’d been taking constant shots at me, and my boss, in essence, didn’t really do anything about it because he’d never seen the guy do any of that. Finally, this one day, we were all in a meeting together when the guy, with his outside consultants . . . Well, he tried to push my button—you know, get me upset about an issue. I’d made a statement and he looked at me and said, “Well, Jack, you’re acting just like a white manager would act.” At first, I didn’t respond. I just looked at him. Finally, I said, “Well, Robert, I’m sorry you feel that way.” Then he made another statement, and since I didn’t react to that one either, he just blew up! He just—he looks like—in fact, he got almost irrational, and then he realized that he was getting irrational and I was sitting there calmly with my legs crossed. Then he looked around and stopped. But then it was too late; the others had seen it. (p. 196)

Racism is not always this overt. In fact, it is usually subtle, and any given event can seem minor in isolation from other events. However, the picture painted by Dickens and Dickens’ (1991) respondents is that of existence in an organizational fabric where every thread is woven from an assumption of one’s incompetence until proven otherwise, where mentorship and opportunity are granted to others based on race (consciously or unconsciously), and where one’s contributions—and often one’s very physical presence—are routinely overlooked. Clearly, dominant culture members do not exist in this difficult and demoralizing reality. The same respondent quoted earlier also said, I asked for more work and was given some additional personnel programs along with the people who administered the programs. Oh! Well, that meant I got a promotion. I got a title that I had deserved, which essentially . . . well, uh . . . I had been working with these people in the background anyway, even though they didn’t report to me. Sooo it’s as though I had already been operating at that level long before I got the title and official responsibility. I’d been managing a budget and doing some other tasks.

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

191

You know what? It got so bad, people would come up and ask me, “Well, when are they going to promote you? You’re already operating at the next level.” Yeah, man! Even some of the secretaries said that; they could clearly see it. You know, it’s finally dawned on me that organizations make blacks operate at the next level before they sanction it—and they do this to protect themselves. That way, they can ensure that they don’t have any blacks who fail. What it did was to make me angry; I was very angry over it. It was a different kind of anger from what I had experienced before. I could see my results and successes and . . . And I was angry because I didn’t get rewards for my work. But I sublimated that anger and used the energy instead to position the organization so it became embarrassing to them to not give me a reward. How? By getting unique results. Outstandingly unique results, such that nobody could deny that they were outstandingly unique results. Since I had done that several times, the company had to do something to show they recognized my outstanding contribution—more money, a title, a promotion, or something! You almost have to force organizations to see your results! You have to strategize because your results can easily get dismissed, where the organization might not attribute a . . . uh, a lot of expertise to the obtaining of the results. You . . . You have to show the results in a dramatic way, so that it undeniable that you got good, unique, outstanding results. You’ve got to strategize about who you’re going to show the results to or how to position people so they can see the results. (pp. 193–194)

After all of this effort and concerted energy devoted to making his superiors recognize his contributions and reward him equitably for them, Jack describes a crisis of identity. He describes a stressful period, thinking through whether he was “giving up his Blackness,” whether he was being “absorbed by the system.” He describes a personal struggle with what being a supervising manager, the holder of corporate power, means to a Black person. Our analysis would indicate that this crisis of identity stems from the simultaneous existence of two interpenetrating and contradictory cultural structures. The African-American organizational experience is quite a different animal from the European-American experience. Dickens and Dickens’ (1991) work provides ample evidence to support that observation. Their descriptions of the phases in their model are drawn directly from the experiences of successful African-American managers in White corporate settings. The entry phase is characterized by no movement in job growth, little or no direction from the boss, little or no direction in personal goals, an “I’ve got it made” feeling (having secured the job), contained anger (discomfort is ignored), and reserved behavior (“don’t make waves”). The adjusting phase has two parts, dissatisfaction and frustration. In the dissatisfaction stage,

192

CHAPTER 5

the minority manager experiences a negative reaction to Whites, periodic displays of anger, low self-confidence, increasing awareness of inequalities, complaining, negative reactions at seeing white peers receive more responsibility and more desirable assignments. The frustration stage is marked by rage that cannot be contained or managed (that may be seen as a bad attitude by Whites in the organization); increasing conflict with Whites (that may be seen as militant or noncooperative); stalled personal growth, job growth, and productivity; stagnation of job results; and becoming more vocal, speaking out about feelings, usually inappropriately. The planned growth phase is characterized by management of rage (control of outbursts and consciously selecting things to respond to with anger); changes in personal style (smoother behavior and fewer fights); movement toward goals and established career plan; firmer goals and clear vision; and rough periods, slipping back to frustration and dissatisfaction. Finally, the success phase is marked by the achievement of goals and visible progress; setting more ambitious goals; a fully developed interaction style; high confidence; high-quality results; understanding of the system and skill in using it; less reliance on approval from others, particularly from Whites; high importance of results; and a “success affect”—self-confidence and importance. The two major issues of concern in the model are survival and success; the first two phases are associated with survival, the latter two with success. Black managers felt they must develop a higher degree of job skills, especially in management, than their white peers. They felt that in order to survive and be successful in a major white corporation, there were some skills blacks had to learn that were different from the skills learned by whites. Two of these . . . are the management of racism and the management of conflict. (p. 19)

Dickens and Dickens discuss each phase by focusing on attitudes, emotions, behaviors, and job skills. For our purposes here to maintain a central focus on communication, we concentrate on their treatment of behaviors. In addition, Dickens and Dickens present specific problems common for each stage and advocate solutions. These problems and solutions are deeply embedded in communication principles. In the entry phase, they describe two primary behaviors: “fit-in” and “avoidance,” described as extremes. These correspond directly to Orbe’s “preferred outcomes” assimilation and separation. The first problem in this phase is overcoming reluctance in asking work-related questions of Whites. The first solution is comprised of what communication theorists would call self-talk. Another solution is use of the “power model,” prefacing the question by telling the person one’s boss has sent one to ask the question. The third solution for this problem is to “pre-position” the individual to receive

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

193

the question. “ ‘I want to ask you a question. Now, the question may seem elementary to you, but I’m not really concerned about how you view it.’ . . . People don’t like to be told beforehand how they’re going to react to something, so they will work hard to do the opposite of what is suggested. It is simple reverse psychology” (p. 68). The second and third problems in the entry phase are defining one’s job role and setting a positive direction in one’s job. The solutions to both of these problems are to talk to others, particularly the boss. Specific advice for doing so is provided. The fourth problem is being successful with interpersonally insensitive people. All the solutions are embedded in communication theory: asking questions, confronting their insensitivity, sharing one’s feelings, and limiting interaction. Detailed information on communication techniques is provided. The two problems in the entry phase are being comfortable and successful as the only (or small minority) Black meeting participant and ensuring that one is heard in meetings. Specifically, the common behavior of dominant group members to overlook and thereby render co-cultural group members invisible is addressed. For example, talking to the Black manager’s boss instead of directly to him or her or ignoring (consciously or unconsciously) the input of the Black manager. Again, solutions are communication skills, including questioning, assertiveness, timing, interjecting, and repetition. In addition, specific nonverbal behaviors are advocated. “Put your elbows on the table, lean forward, and say to the person who keeps talking to you through your boss, ‘perhaps you didn’t hear what I said earlier . . .’ ” (p. 80). The next problem discussed in the entry phase is keeping work experience broad enough to position one for advancement. Again, the advice given to the reader is a specific “how-to” for speaking to the boss, what to say, how to say it, when to say it. The next problem addressed is translating material from training and development sessions for one’s own use. The solutions advocated comprise, in effect, intercultural competence. Finally, the last problem discussed for this first phase is developing a psychological support system. The solutions are a primer in relationship skills. In the adjusting phase, Dickens and Dickens contend that the behavior exhibited by Black managers centers around linking with what they call the informal communications network. An informal communications network exists in most companies, but blacks are normally excluded from it. To become a part of the network, blacks have to be friendly with whites. They do this by either seeking an authentic friendship or, as a minimum, affecting a relationship with whites in order to get them to share company information. Blacks must behave in what appears to be a friendly manner with whites in order to be able to function more effectively in the corporation. (p. 26)

194

CHAPTER 5

They also describe the importance of confrontive behavior as necessary in order that they are not treated dismissively in favor of their White peers. It is interesting to note here that being treated dismissively is often an expected experience for Blacks in the predominantly White organization. Our data suggests that being dismissed or ignored is also common in the Black organization, where it is not expected; as discussed previously, there is little tolerance for such violation of the African-American cultural value of humanism. Paradoxically, in a White organization “confrontation can often be dysfunctional for blacks” (p. 26). The management of Black–White interactions, and the frustration that results from undeveloped skill in this area, is of paramount importance in the adjusting phase. This is associated with a great deal of sensitivity to people. Finally, an important behavior at this point is resistance to organizational power, where Black managers begin to learn how to resist the ways in which Whites in the organization may position them to fulfill negative and prejudicial stereotypes. Blacks enter a corporation armed with their own cultural behavioral patterns, which they soon find cannot be fully used in the corporation to accomplish results. It becomes obvious during the Adjusting Phase that blacks have to develop additional behavioral styles and skills. This does not mean that blacks should discard their cultural style. It does mean, however, that blacks should acquire an additional behavioral repertoire to accomplish results. (p. 27, emphasis in original)

Here, Dickens and Dickens (1991) are clearly advocating an accomodationist model of intercultural competence. Given the prescriptive nature of the work and its intended “popular press” audience, this is, of course, not theoretically fleshed out. To the critical eye from a communication stance, however, it is clear that their readership is being advised to adapt to a Eurocentric model of organizing and of work while at the same time protecting their own cultural identity and sense of self—albeit in private. The problems addressed in this chapter are successfully bringing various problems to one’s boss for improved organizational success, getting the most from meetings with one’s boss, successfully interacting with Whites when one is angry, selling ideas to one’s boss, getting cooperation from others, tapping into the informal communications network, managing stress [“making use of cultural paranoia” (p. 130)], using anger as a motivator for success, resisting intimidation from Whites, reducing time spent in this phase, managing the evaluation process, and setting up a network for Black managers. As even the most novice communication theorist would guess, the solutions, again, amount to a primer on communication skills, relationship skills, and intercultural competence.

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

195

In the planned growth phase, a main behavioral issue is overcoming mistrust of input from Whites. In this phase, Black managers are described as keeping their misgivings to themselves and behaving in a manner of trust. Readers are advised to take initiative to access potential individuals in the hierarchy and select a sponsor, establish a relationship with that sponsor, and seek out mentorship. In this phase, the Black manager is charged with becoming an author of his or her own fate in the corporation. Not having been granted the mentorship offered to his or her White peers, the Black manager must manage interaction upward through the hierarchy to gain access to such mentorship. Many blacks will in various ways exert pressure on their organization in order to advance. For instance, a black manager may be able to point out the company’s inequities toward its black managers or may confront the organization directly about his or her current status in relation to white peers. Whatever the initial activity, black managers in the planned growth phase begin to take conscious charge of their destiny. (p. 31)

Here, the readership is advised to learn the ways that the organization’s system of promotion works and to, both overtly and covertly, demand that they be allowed access to it. Problems addressed in the planned growth phase include successfully managing conflict, developing a smoother style of interacting, effectively probing negative feedback, recognizing hot organizational issues, taking initiative in one’s job, acquiring a sponsor or mentor, documenting and using personal learnings, using constructive feedback, presenting ideas to one’s boss, discussing racial incidents and the effects of race with Whites, and setting up an informal learning group. Once again, the solutions are communication based and embedded in communication, relationship, and intercultural skills. In the success phase, Black managers have acquired the ability to “turn racism around and make it work for them, not against them” (p. 34). In this phase, Black managers develop a smoother interpersonal style and better ability to influence others. Black managers are advised here to develop their charismatic power; they must rely on influential behavior rather than real position power to get others (Whites) to work for them. A high degree of sensitivity is also advocated. “They learn they must confront whites in a way that leaves whites their dignity. If not, racism will dominate the whites’ behavior and cause them to become illogical. This prevents the reaching of closure on any issue” (p. 35). As throughout the book, here the Black manager is strongly advised to work his or her way into the system and then turn back onto the system accountability for failures embedded in the system. By this phase, Black managers have

196

CHAPTER 5

a track record, they have produced outstanding results and gained respect from others. However, this merely means they have won the opportunity to work to maintain that record, the opportunity to prove competence to the company again and again. This is a failure on the part of the system. The noticeable difference for white managers is that they normally move through the organization on the basis of perceived potential. . . . (Black managers) can look outward at the advance they experience and place blame appropriately instead of always turning inward and perceiving failure in themselves. At this point, black managers can make the system own more of the failures, and they can own fewer. (p. 35)

In the success phase, problems addressed are responding to direct challenge without threatening the other person’s dignity, operating at the next higher organizational level, positioning the organization to see one’s results, initiating management of a White subordinate, initiating management of a Black subordinate, developing a personal job strategy, ensuring appropriate communication between appropriate people, and successfully managing time. Specific communication, relationship, and intercultural skills seen here include what communication theorists would call face-saving, altercasting, negotiation, feedback, trust, clarity, impression management, delegation, questioning, openness, and facilitation. The job mastery phase is placed outside the four-phase model because “the individual who has gone beyond the Success Phase has developed a mind-set that places capability, competence, action, and other leadership issues in his or her hands and not in those of the organization” (p. 36). Such an individual is self-actualized and empowered. Such managers have a smoother interpersonal manner and have mastered a style of interaction that puts others at ease and inspires confidence. These individuals fit a communication theorist’s description of a competent communicator. Rather than problems, principles are discussed here. They include having vision of success, moving away from unfulfilling positions/roles, understanding leadership, being a role model, self-confidence and charisma, influencing highlevel decision makers, and taking risks. Dickens and Dickens go on in several chapters to detail specific internal, external, and environmental career strategies, other directions for success, diversity management, and future opportunity. The book is rich with communication principles for managing the intercultural communication necessary for a minority group member negotiating his or her way through a dominant culture organization. Again, our understanding of our data is made richer when grounded in an understanding of the organizational world experienced by our respondents in predominantly White organizational and institutional systems. Whereas they do not experience racism and racial discrimination in the same way in a predominantly African-American organizational system, we

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

197

can expect parallels due to the similar interpenetration of cultural structures. The most striking example is our respondents’ cry for respect, participation in organizational processes, and recognition of their contributions, as discussed throughout chapters 2 to 4 and earlier in this chapter. African-Americans and School/Educational Organizations. A great deal has been written about African Americans and public educational systems. However, like other literature regarding organizational experiences of African Americans, the vast majority of this literature focuses on patterns of discrimination, racism, and equal opportunity. We have chosen to review here a few pieces that specifically address communication issues. First, McCreary and Wright (1997) provide a case study of a support group for African-American male students sponsored by a predominantly White, urban, southeastern university. They argue that African-American male students have unique needs resulting from their minority status, that academic performance is adversely affected by these unmet needs, that academic and cognitive interventions are inadequate when used separately, and that support groups are a viable method of meeting these unique needs. McCreary and Wright eloquently argue for the need to design support systems for African-American male college students. They contend that the disproportionally high attrition rates for African-American men in college are explained not by a lack of ability, but by lack of support. “The administrative and programmatic expectation of predominantly white universities is that African-American students assimilate into the larger academic community” (p. 48). However, assimilationist strategies marginalize the culturally embedded behaviors and values that embody the African-American students’ very modes of action and interaction. In addition, “assimilationism can be perceived as a dehumanizing process vis-à-vis its implied acceptance of the racial status quo. Dehumanization negatively impacts self-esteem and reduces motivation (Brown, 1984) both of which negatively impact academic success” (McCreary & Wright, 1997, p. 48). The support group provides a mutual support system for African-American males in which they find affirmation for their cultural values, guidance, and culturally relevant paradigms for their own growth (McCreary & Wright, 1997). The support group described is called “Brother to Brother.” The group was initiated in an attempt to improve academic performance and graduation rates among African-American male students. The members of the group were diverse in terms of socioeconomic background, geographic origin (including first-and second-generation African immigrants), and environment of origin. “It was readily apparent that there is no typical African-American male, and no single descriptor that adequately describes the experiences of African-American men” (p. 53). Core issues for the group tended to revolve around goals and strategies to achieve those goals, racial

198

CHAPTER 5

discrimination on campus, other racial incidents, strategies and encouragement for coping with alienation, mentoring, loss and grief, perceptions of university environment, and career goals. Ten graduating group members were interviewed about their experiences in the group. These interviews revealed 90 support group issues, which were then classified into 7 mutually exclusive categories: learning from the group, nature of the group, male issues, the university, members of the group, good group leader, and operational knowledge (learning to survive). The authors cite a 90% graduation record among members of the support group, as compared to their initial citation of attrition rates for African-American male students (at predominantly White universities) ranging from 40% to 75% nationwide. It is clear from this case study that these men gained great insight into their own behavior, maturity, responsibility, and growth from interaction with a culturally sensitive support group. They learned to cope with stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. They found a safe environment to voice their anger and distrust in the institution. “This group of AfricanAmerican male college students were fairly angry and distrustful of their institution. Here [in the support group], the men in the group stated that they did not want anything from the university and felt that the university did not care about them” (p. 61). This group provided the support and social comfort that allowed these young men to succeed. These group members began their association with the group as students who were identified as academically at risk. This case study provides evidence that their previous poor academic performance was likely a result of feeling marginalized, dehumanized, and uncared for on campus. The support group did not provide academic remediation, yet these students cited their experience with the group as being a powerful force in their academic improvement. A recurring theme can be seen here in this literature. So much of the solution to organizational problems of African-Americans is centered around communication and relationships. Our own data are resoundingly echoed here. Hunter (1999) presents a model for educating African-American males. The essay focuses on teaching reading at the elementary and middle school levels. Through examination of standardized elementary school reading scores (average score and percentile rank for each school) for four of the five New York boroughs (and middle school scores for one borough only) and a historical analysis of education and the Black male, Hunter develops 27 recommendations based on three principles. The first principle is to make learning interesting; the second is to rely heavily on praise; and the third is to reward accomplishments positively, immediately, and with enthusiasm. The 27 recommendations revolve around issues of holism (e.g., make everything you teach interrelated), family (e.g., establish parent learning groups), role modeling, cultural experiences, collectivism (e.g., encourage unity through

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

199

doing things together), responsibility, tangible results (e.g., class projects such as a play or a debate), practical application, importance of merit, and internal motivation. The parallels to our data are apparent. Lomotey (1993) discusses the African-American school principal, analyzing the differences that distinguish the bureaucrat/administrator (Eurocentric) role from the ethno-humanist (Afrocentric) role. The study presents data from two interviews of African-American school principals and finds that they often move back and forth between these two identities. Citing previous research, the author identifies three qualities typical of African-American principals in predominantly African-American schools: “commitment to the education of all students; confidence in the ability of all students to do well; and compassion for, and understanding of, all students and the communities in which they live” (p. 396). These qualities comprise the ethno-humanist role identity, with the objective of meeting cultural goals. In this role, principals identify with African-American students as a member of their culture. They argue that academic success is not enough. What is needed, these principals contend, is an education about one’s culture, about life and about where these African-American students fit in the society and in the world. In essence, these leaders encourage African-American students to look at the world through an African-centered set of lenses that provides them with vision that is more focused, has a wider periphery and more depth. (p. 397)

Conversely, the bureaucrat/administrator role perpetuates the stratification and credentialing functions of schools in a commitment to facilitate the movement of students from grade to grade with the objective of meeting societal goals. In the bureaucrat/administrator role, the principals’ commentary centers around the themes of goal development, energy harnessing, communication facilitation, and instructional management. In the ethno-humanist role, their commentary centers around the themes of commitment, compassion, and confidence. The difference between the two roles is summarized as that between “schooling” and “education.” Although it is critically important that we improve the academic achievement of African-American students, it is equally important that we enable the students to fit into and serve a meaningful role in the African-American community and in the United States. Moreover, African-American students need to be made to feel good about themselves as individuals and as African-Americans. (p. 409)

All of these studies (Hunter, 1999; Lomotey, 1993; McCreary & Wright, 1997) speak to the necessity of addressing learners’ needs with cultural sen-

200

CHAPTER 5

sitivity based on an understanding of underlying cultural structures. They reveal key differences in modes of organizing between European-American culture and African-American culture. Whereas European-American culture views education as a highly stratified, hierarchical, and linear process, African-American culture views education as a holistic, personal, and circular process. The addition of racial discrimination to these basic cultural differences spells disaster for many African-American students in predominantly White educational institutions. The support of community becomes evermore important—a fact that McCreary and Wright’s (1997) support group, Hunter’s (1999) model, and Lomotey’s (1993) interviews with school principals seem to embody. The theme running through stories of educational success for African-American students in predominantly White educational systems is the importance of support, in the form of mentoring and guidance in the way that one fits into the society, from one’s cultural community. Here, we can clearly see the holism, collectivism, and positivity that are the hallmarks of African-American culture.

CONCLUSION African-American organizational members of predominantly African-American organizations with European-based hierarchal organizational forms enter their organizations having had broad experiences with predominantly White organizational and institutional systems. The preceding review of the African-American experience in predominantly White organizations thus serves as a framework from which to understand the past organizational experiences of the individuals who serve as informants for this research. As previously discussed, these individuals approach a predominantly AfricanAmerican organization with the expectation that a Black organization will afford a different experience, offering them a “homecoming” of sorts; that they will not be faced with racism or discriminatory practices; and that they will not encounter the oppression they have experienced in dominant culture institutions. A great deal of the oppression found in traditional organizational forms is embedded in their structure (Barker, 1993; Deetz, 1992; Huspek, 1994; Mumby, 1988)—which is, of course, Eurocentric. Thus, these individuals do not find relief from systemically embedded oppression, although they do, naturally, find more freedom from racial discrimination. Although racial discrimination is certainly present in predominantly White U.S. organizations, a great number of the difficulties experienced by African-American members of dominant culture organizations is also rooted in the cultural structure of the organizational form. Dickens and Dickens (1991), for example, extensively discuss the Black manager’s need to accommodate to the cultural

DIVERGENT ORGANIZATION’S COMMUNICATIVE DOWNWARD SPIRAL

201

features of the White organization if she or he is to succeed within that structure. Because of the stress associated with such accommodation, and the lack of mentoring available to most African-American members of dominant culture organizations, many of those entering the predominantly African-American organization do so having been exhausted by their experiences in White institutions/organizations. This reality, coupled with the phenomenon of the divergent organization and the myth of homecoming begins to explain the downward spiral of communication documented in predominantly African-American organizations. This downward spiral can be seen in other types of non-African-American divergent organizations, as is discussed in chapter 6. In the predominantly African-American organization, however, the conflicts are by far more vitriolic, the immobilization more intense, and the erosion of the organizational system and of human development more extreme. The question as to why the predominantly African-American organization with Eurocentric hierarchical form provides a context so vulnerable to these difficulties is explained, in part, by the particular history of Africans in America, as explained throughout sections of chapters 3, 4, and 5. Although the divergent phenomena we have documented impact the Black organization far more severely, they can be also be encountered in the White organization, as illustrated in chapter 6.

C H A P T E R

6 Theoretic Applications

In the previous chapters a complex set of phenomena, conceptualized as the divergent organization, is explicated. In the process, we have come to several theoretic conclusions that must now be applied. The primary—and stickiest—question facing us at this juncture is one of intervention. How might we apply these findings and emergent models to remedy the difficulties experienced in the divergent organization, particularly the predominantly African-American organization with European-based organizational form/design? The second question we are faced with is of more general application. How might these findings be applied to other types of organizations and to other cultures? We address these questions in turn.

PREDOMINANTLY AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS It is quite simple to suggest that predominantly African-American organizations should merely be restructured or reorganized into Afrocentric organizational forms such as Warfield-Coppock’s (1994) Afrocentric working collectives (see Fig. 3.2). The hallmark of these organizational forms is that they are circular (unified, holistic, etc.) rather than triangular (vertically hierarchical, linear, etc.). The dilemma here is that African-American culture, although arguably African based, is not African in the same sense that African cultures are African. African-American culture is complicated and unique, influenced not only by African cultures, but also by European 202

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

203

cultures and a unique set of American experiences throughout history, as discussed in chapters 3, 4, and 5. Furthermore, the problems experienced by members of predominantly African-American organizations are also grounded in a strong collectivist ethos for the uplifting of African-American culture in the context of a history of societal racist and discriminatory forces, coupled with vertically hierarchical forms that often lead to displaced anger, frustration, and reproduction of oppressive practices intraculturally, as shown previously. Contemporary African Americans are diverse, with a variety of unique social, economic, educational, and other cultural experiences; contemporary African-American culture is far from being purely African, but maintains the basic collectivist ethos. Warfield-Coppock’s (1994, 1995) models are an ambitious attempt to bring organizational form in balance with the collectivist ethos of African and African-American culture, to bridge Eurocentric values with more African-centered cultural values. We can suggest with little reservation that a less triangular (vertically hierarchical) and more circular (relationally unified) organizational form/design may indeed be in order for these organizations. In our final chapter, we discuss the implications of our research for building a humanistic theory of organizational form/design based on a philosophy of harmonious balance of cultural values previously conceptualized as polar opposites. We argue that conscious understanding of cultural processes is necessary for organizational members in any organization, particularly those with culturally diverse memberships. Here in this present chapter, however, we stop short of discussing these more far-reaching theoretic implications, merely recalling our baseline model (Fig. 1.1), and suggesting that a more natural blend of congruent cultural structures might result for predominantly African-American organizations with circular, rather than triangular, organizational forms. In chapter 7, we examine in more detail a humanistic description of organizational form. Here, we simply illustrate, using the baseline model (Fig. 1.1), how such a circular organizational form would be more appropriate for the predominantly African-American organization than a triangular form. Hereon, our use of the term triangular shall be used to mean vertically hierarchical, and the term circular to mean relationally unified. Returning to the Baseline Model In Fig. 1.1, we illustrate how the triangular structure of the traditional U.S. corporate organizational form interpenetrates with the triangular structure of European-American culture to produce a natural blend. In Fig. 3.1, we show how the same triangular structure (organizational form) interpenetrates with the circular structure of African-American culture to produce a difficult blend, resulting in the downward communicative spiral of unre-

204

CHAPTER 6

solved conflict, immobilization, and erosion of the organizational system and of human development (as shown in Fig. 5.1). It is not a great leap to posit that an organizational design/form with a more circular structure would interpenetrate with the circular features in the structure of AfricanAmerican culture to produce a natural blend. Figure 6.1 illustrates this idea in an ideal form. We would expect an organizational form that springs from and thus encompasses the cultural rules and resources listed in Table 3.2 to be more appropriate for predominantly African-American organizational membership. Our concept of a more circular organizational design would do at least some of the following: promote harmonious personal relationships, respect spirituality, be committed to community, support shared responsibility, sustain unity, uphold a value that defers to members’ experience, endorse continuous logic (cyclic reasoning), value organizational members’ humanity and unique talents, promote a mission-oriented work ethic of excellence, defer to long-tenured employees, encourage collectivistic and interdependent functioning, promote the common good, respect the power of the spoken word, encourage communalism, support polysynchronic notions of timeliness, and encourage thinking that is holistic, circular, and inductive. An African-American organization needs a structure that supports these cultural ideals. Realistically, what is also needed is organizational form and organizational culture that create and sustain convergence rather than divergence in the interpenetration of diverse (triangular and circular) cultural rules and resources. This set of ideas is further developed in chapter 7. The Downward Spiral Upended. In a well-functioning organization, the problems engendered by competitive interests and difficult interactions are more successfully negotiated. Hence, we would expect that the recurrent conflict experienced in the divergent organization would give way to the successful negotiation of competitive interests and difficult interactions

FIG. 6.1. The interpenetration of complementary structures.

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

205

FIG. 6.2. An upward spiral of communication processes in a circular organization.

when the interpenetrating cultural structures are congruent. Likewise, we would not expect immobilization, but rather, we anticipate that such successful negotiation will lead to successful goal attainment at the individual and organizational levels. Finally, we would not expect erosion of the system and human development to occur; instead we anticipate that goal attainment will lead to successful development at the individual and organizational levels. Figure 6.2 illustrates this upward spiral, suggested as the antithesis of the downward spiral in Fig. 5.1. The Complete Model Applied. To follow this speculation through, and for the time being making the assumption that the problematics identified in our data will not differ significantly, we can begin to see how our entire model of human communication can be applied. Figure 6.3 illustrates what human communication might look like in the predominantly African-American organization with an organizational form/design that allows it to reproduce circular features of its culture without creating divergence. In the center lies the cognitive mechanism for invoking structure into system (bringing cultural rules and resources to interaction). As discussed previously, we posit that this cognitive mechanism is comprised of relational and task orientations as individuals manage these two basic dimensions of organizational life. Immediately surrounding this cognitive mechanism is the interaction cycle: negotiation of competitive interests and difficult interactions, organizational and individual goal attainment; and organizational and human development. Arising from relational and task orientations, and playing out through interaction, are the four basic problematics (defined and discussed fully in chap. 2): communication and interpersonal dynamics; cultural identity and human development; leadership and management; and power, authority, and control. Of course, there is the ever-present possibility that the character of the problematics themselves will differ. Given

206

CHAPTER 6

FIG. 6.3. Human communication in the predominantly African-American organization with circular form/design.

their validity in our two data sets, we might expect these problematics to be present in predominantly African-American organizations. However, it may be that these problematics are salient in the presence of the interpenetration of incongruent cultural structures, but not in the presence of congruent cultural structures. In the predominantly African-American convergent organization, a different set of problematics may be more salient. Organizational Restructuring. For any organization, restructuring is an inevitably difficult process (Haveman, 1992). Throughout history, the African-American organizational experience has encountered various levels of historical oppressive derivatives (as previously discussed), making trust in any organizational process a thorny problem. Given that organizational change engenders mistrust in even the most untroubled environments (see Haveman, 1992 for a review), accomplishing a massive organizational form/ design change for an African-American organization presents special challenges. Thus, we discuss in chapter 7 interventions for divergent AfricanAmerican organizations, focusing on the importance of consciousnessraising about African-American culture and history, education about the cultural embeddedness of all human action, involvement, and a culturally rich approach.

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

207

ORGANIZATIONS WITH EUROPEAN-BASED CULTURAL MEMBERSHIP It is our contention that organizational divergence, as theorized in previous chapters, will occur whenever contradictory structures interpenetrate. To illustrate this claim, we discuss next the European or predominantly European-American organization in contemporary restructuring from traditional European-based organizational forms (bureaucracies, vertical hierarchies, etc.) to more participatory (and thus more circular) structures. Using the research literature and case studies conducted by other scholars, we demonstrate strikingly similar patterns of difficulty and communication problems that occur in these organizations. In this literature, there is ample evidence to uphold our theoretic explanation of the “divergent organization” as the interpenetration of incongruent structures. The following discussion illustrates that the phenomenon documented in our data sets is particularized by African-American history and situatedness but is not exclusive to predominantly African-American organizations. Rather, the phenomenon of the divergent organization can be seen in other cases where there is incongruence between human cultural structure and the cultural structure of the organizational design/form. Completing the Baseline Model Before discussing unanticipated consequences of corporate restructuring with a framework of divergence, it is helpful to complete the baseline model for comparison. Recall, again, that in Fig. 1.1, we illustrate how the triangular structure of the traditional European-based U.S. corporate organizational form interpenetrates with the triangular structure of EuropeanAmerican culture to produce a natural blend. Following our logic, we can easily posit that this natural blend allows a upward spiral of communication similar to that depicted in Fig. 6.2 but triangular in shape to represent the hierarchical organizational form of the traditional Eurocentric design (see Fig. 6.4). As noted earlier, the term triangular is used here to refer to a vertically hierarchical organizational form that springs from and thus promotes the Eurocentric rules and resources listed in Table 1.1 (task orientation, materialism, profit, control, hierarchy, authority, etc.). In addition, the cognitive mechanism posited for the invocation of structure into system is flipped so that task orientation is privileged over relational orientation, reflecting Eurocentrically based traditional organizational/corporate cultures. To fully flesh out this speculation, we can begin to see how our emergent model of human communication can be applied. The organizations represented in our data sets, probably stemming in part from their Eurocentric organizational form, reveal a set of problematics that could be used as sec-

208

CHAPTER 6

FIG. 6.4. An upward spiral of communication processes in a triangular organization.

tion titles in the table of contents for a textbook in any of the varied disciplines that study organizations (see Fig. 2.1). Of course, the ways in which these problematics play out in our data is quite different from the gardenvariety White organization exemplified in textbooks. For the sake of this speculation in applying the model to the European-based (or triangular) organization, the second problematic (that of cultural identity and human development) will be made more generic, dropping the term cultural. Figure 6.5 applies our complete emergent model, carrying the baseline model through fully.

FIG. 6.5. Human communication in the triangular organization.

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

209

We can now more wholly see that the generic “organization” depicted in the typical textbook is not generic at all, but is a complex process of interpenetrating cultural structures that have traditionally been glossed over by scholars examining demographically homogenous organizations. Here we strive to demonstrate how intensive study of the typical Eurocentrically designed African-American organization allows a depiction of European or European-American organizations with traditional Eurocentric corporate form as a baseline, rather than an unexamined set of assumptions. This full baseline model also allows a unique understanding of the difficulties and unanticipated consequences of corporate restructuring. Corporate Restructuring It has long been acknowledged that inflexible corporate hierarchies stifle creativity and innovation (Stohl, 1995) and contradict democratic ideals (Barker & Cheney, 1994; Cheney, 1995; Gamson & Levin, 1985). Employee participation programs, dating back several decades, reflect this recognition; managers perched at the top of vertical organizational hierarchies have long examined the potential of participatory decision making to enhance both productivity and satisfaction (e.g., Argyris, 1964; Bennis, 1966; Lowin, 1968; McGregor, 1960; Meyer, 1970; Vroom, 1970; White & Lippitt, 1960). As a result of increasing international competition, a turbulent economic environment, and the changing demographics of the global workforce, companies throughout the world are paying attention to alternative organizational designs which incorporate greater voice for their employees. Teams, semiautonomous workgroups, quality circles, and flattened hierarchies are among the structures companies are implementing to increase participation in the workplace of the 21st century. Companies expect to gain competitive advantage by encouraging worker involvement throughout the production process. (Stohl, 1995, p. 199)

Frey (1995) discusses team-based organizational designs as a “magical elixir” for organizational problems, one that is seen as a cure for productivity problems as well as problems relating to employee satisfaction and commitment. “Buzzwords” such as flattening, decentralization, re-engineering, teaming, total quality management, and other such monikers reflect changes in organizational design that increase participation and modify the organization from more vertically hierarchal (triangular) to more unified (circular) form. For the most part, such organizational change does not remove vertical hierarchy—just changes and/or supplements its shape. It is yet to be seen whether more circular networks will replace hierarchy in U.S. organiza-

210

CHAPTER 6

tional life. Currently, more unified organizational forms (networks, teams) are amalgamated with vertical hierarchy. Whereas once charts of pyramiding boxes were believed to be the only rational map by which people organize themselves, going into the 21st century, systems of intertwining, densely populated networks will be found supplementing, weaving through and sometimes totally eclipsing hierarchies. (Stohl, 1995, p. 199, citing Lipnack & Stamps, 1986)

It is quite striking to us that a penciled image of such networks (which we conceptualize as circular) and hierarchies (which we conceptualize as triangular) supplementing and weaving through one another would closely resemble (if not duplicate) our pictorial depiction of the difficult blend that is the divergent organization (see Figs. 3.1, 5.1, and 5.2). For example, in quite recent work, Jackson, Deetz, McPherson, and Grim (2000) and McPherson (2001) document the process that unfolds during the structural change of a knowledge-intensive bureaucracy. The structural change consisted of merging two departments (computing and telecommunications) into one, with resulting divergences between these organizational cultures and between the new organizational form and the existing organizational cultures. McPherson (2001) describes two basic logics of participation enacted by organizational members: a technical logic (ensuring task accomplishment) and a collaborative logic (promoting relationships). She goes on to describe the ways in which these logics interpenetrate to create difficulties and the ways in which they are bridged by ambiguously tying them together. Clearly, these logics of participation easily correspond to the contradictory interpenetrating structures we have identified in our data. In the same line of research as McPherson (2001), Jackson et al. (2000) provide evidence of a downward spiral in the organization, consisting of unresolved conflict, immobilization of goal attainment, and diminished capacity for development. A clash of cultures is documented, citing mistrust and disagreements about basic organizational philosophy and function. The result is a “looking backward” that impedes goal-attainment and arrests organizational and individual development. The organization presented in Jackson et al’s. (2000) and McPherson’s (2001) reports (from a case study still in progress at this writing) unmistakably fits the profile of the divergent organization. We see these reports as evidence that the phenomenon of the divergent organization exists in predominantly European-American organizations in transition from hierarchal (triangular) forms to unified (circular) forms. Paradoxes of Participation It is the notion of paradox attending such transition that is most instructive to our current purposes. Through systematic examination of tensions and contradictions in communication activities associated with worker partici-

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

211

pation groups, Stohl and Cheney (2001) identify 14 paradoxes of participation, broadening Stohl’s (1995) list of 7 with which she had originally explicated her thesis that “worker participation is often enacted in ways that are inherently paradoxical” (Stohl, 1995, p. 202). In a theoretical expansion of the original work (Stohl, 1995), Stohl and Cheney (2001) derive four categories of paradox (Structure, Agency, Identity, and Power) within which 14 specific types of paradox reside. Stohl and Cheney’s (2001) paradoxes of participation are easily conceptualized as divergences in our theoretic approach. To explore this idea, we shall analyze each paradox in turn, assessing whether the previously identified rules and resources of Eurocentric organizational structure, described here as triangular, seem to be in play (see Table 1.1). We then assess whether the counterparts of these rules/resources identified as rules/resources of African-American human systems, described here as circular, are reflected in divergence (see Table 3.2). Here, we begin to build more humanistic theory from our data. Paradoxes of Structure. This category concerns the architecture of participation democracy. Specifically, these include the paradoxes of design, adaptation, punctuation, and formalization (Stohl & Cheney, 2001). The paradox of design addresses effects of participation that is often imposed. The persistent power of vertical hierarchy is reflected in Kanter’s (1983) seminal work on organizational change. Employee participation is often mandated by upper management, becoming “what the top tells the middle to do to the bottom” (see also Frey, 1995), thereby placing in paradox participants at the bottom because the form and function of their input is driven from above rather than from within. Any power afforded by their participation is constrained (if not controlled) by the participation program designed, of course, by those at the top. Stohl (1995) describes the paradox of design as an “incompatibility between the goals of participation interventions and the processes by which the interventions are initiated (the design)” (p. 204). We clearly see this as the interpenetration of contradictory structures, where the cultural structure of the new organizational design is incompatible with the cultural structure of the existing organizational culture. The process is indeed structurational, as evidenced by Stohl’s summary comments about the paradox of design: The design process may create a system which workers perceive is dominated by the top and simultaneously feared by the middle to be dominated by the bottom. Input by employees is a fundamental value of all participation programs, yet often the implementation communicates that input is not valued. It is not surprising then that participatory groups often reproduce the very bureaucratic and inefficient structures they were designed to eliminate—as people

212

CHAPTER 6

struggle to find their place in a paradoxical system they tend to reproduce patterns of communication with which they are already familiar. (p. 205, emphasis added)

Stohl’s language is telling. The paradox of design describes communication in a system with interpenetrating contradictory structures within which interactions seem to reproduce the previously existing structure of organizational design. What is interesting here in light of our work is that the human/organizational culture invokes the triangular structure in opposition to circularity in the imposed organizational design, attempting to implement that design by reproducing the triangular structure. As shown later as this discussion progresses, the divergent pattern persists throughout each of Stohl and Cheney’s (1995) paradoxes of participation. In the paradox of design, middle managers “are required to give up traditional forms of control and feel forced to introduce the very schemes that threaten their grip on the work process” (Stohl, 1995, p. 204). Stohl describes middle managers as feeling threatened by the participation program because they believe workers are given too much control; she describes workers as distrustful of the program because they perceive it to be controlled by management. Here, several triangular rules/resources are indeed in divergence from their circular counterparts (represented respectively by European-American and African-American culture in our data): control vs. shared responsibility; hierarchy vs. unity; and authority vs. experience (see Tables 1.1 and 3.2). The triangular rule/resource of control diverges from the circular rule/resource of shared responsibility as workers are expected to share the responsibility of decision making while the mechanisms by which that sharing is to take place are controlled by executives. Because middle managers perceive the circular participative design as taking away their power to improve productivity, creativity, and efficiency—the very areas the circular features of the new design are intended to improve—they resist giving up their control and are averse to sharing responsibility. The result for both workers and middle managers, according to Stohl (1995), is distrust in the new design. Note here that the human/organizational culture clings to the triangular cultural structure in opposition to circular aspects of the imposed organizational form. Of course, the entirety of the organizational form is an amalgam of triangularity and circularity, making the organizational design inherently divergent in itself. A stark divergence between the oppositional rules/resources of hierarchy (triangular) and unity (circular) can be seen in the very definition of the paradox of design. Hierarchy and unity diverge as the top tells the middle to command the bottom to participate so that the organization is unified. This effectively eliminates “from any influential position the very people who [sic] the design is supposed to empower” (Stohl, 1995, p. 204, citing

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

213

Kanter, 1983). Participation programs are intended to increase worker involvement, which presumably unifies the organization. The hierarchical nature of its implementation functions to alienate workers as they receive contradictory messages about the value of their participation. These contradictory messages are the manifestation of the interpenetration of contradictory cultural structures. Another divergence is apparent between the triangular value of authority and the circular value of experience. A philosophy driving participation programs is that because of their experience with the job, the worker “in the trenches” has the best vantage point from which to design procedural improvements that increase the quality of organizational outcomes. Yet, Stohl’s description of middle management reveals them as unwilling to relinquish authority to maximize such input. Moreover, workers are hardpressed to give input based on their experience in the face of authoritarian control over the process by which the influence should take place. Experience cannot be valued while authority usurps its cultural power. The paradox of adaptation reflects a “tension between the desire to keep structure going (by those who support it) and continuous adherence to participatory principles” (Stohl & Cheney, 2001, p. 363). In short, the adaptation paradox occurs when restrictive rules are imposed to dictate the nature of democracy. In short, organizational members experience oppressive, rigid, restrictive policies that ostensibly enforce the democratic, fluid, liberating process of participation. We clearly see here several divergences: most notably control/shared responsibility; vertical hierarchy/unity; authority/experience; objectification/humanism; and measurable productivity/mission-purpose-excellence. As upper management dictates the particular processes of participation, they invoke the values of control, hierarchy, and authority that preclude (respectively) the sharing of responsibility in creating participatory processes, the development of unity from within the ranks of employees, and the application of employees’ experience to the creation of policies and procedures. In addition, by imposing formalized rules onto the participation process, participation becomes an objectified process that is antithetical to its humanistic purpose. Finally, by imposing these rules, upper management seeks to develop a standard by which to measure participatory practices, and this usurps the power of meaningful participation to engender excellence in fulfilling the organization’s mission/purpose. Stohl (1995) bases her description of the paradox of punctuation on Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson’s (1967) definition of punctuation as “the process of perceiving causal patterns and sequencing of events” (Stohl, 1995, p. 206). In short, the processes involved in teaching workers to follow specific participatory processes designed to improve efficiency and quality (problem-solving agendas, discussion techniques, conflict management approaches, and so on) are perceived by workers to make them less efficient,

214

CHAPTER 6

and so they resist participatory process. The most ironic aspect of this paradox is that it most strongly affects those workers who are most interested in achieving the goals of participation. This punctuation of events (i.e., viewing the group meetings and process dynamics that are essential to instantiate participation as a waste of time) makes groups resistant to the group dynamics training that is designed to enhance the quality of participation of all group members. Ironically, the resistance often contributes to the group’s sense of powerlessness and dependence upon the external authority; as group members fight against or oppose facilitating efforts the group becomes less organized, less efficient, and positive contributions to the task decrease. Resistance thereby increases the time it takes to master the “tools” of participation, inadvertently separating participation from the real work of the worker, and thereby making the group less efficient. (p. 207)

Two divergences of contradictory values are most apparent: task vs. relational orientation and monosynchronic vs. polysynchronic time orientation. First, workers who are highly task-directed resist the initial inefficiencies most strongly (Stohl, 1995). Participatory group techniques rely heavily on the facilitative aspects of problem analysis that are deeply rooted in relational processes. Here, employees embracing a triangular approach to task are resistant to the circular aspects of the new organizational form. Second, Stohl (1995) reports several employees in her research citing the group facilitation processes as wasting time. The very notion of time as commodity is rooted in a monosynchronic time orientation. These employees who are frustrated by what they view as the misuse of time are resistant to the more polysynchronic notion of timeliness. Time “spent” in the slower moving early phases of group participation efforts provides a long-term result of more effective and efficient organizational processes. A polysynchronic philosophy recognizes the value of this kind of “timely” endeavor—in time, such participatory training will be valuable and improve organizational process and outcome. Employees unwilling to “spend” time in the short term are applying a monosynchronic notion of timeliness (time as currency). In the short term, their tasks may not be completed on time; because of the central importance of being “on time” (meeting deadlines) in monosynchronic thinking, this is perceived as too risky, and so they resist participation. To explain the paradox of formalization, Stohl and Cheney (2001) cite Burke’s (1954/1965) “bureaucratization of the imaginative” and Weber’s (1968/1978) “routinization of charisma.” In short, “actors try to formalize a process that at its very heart needs to be informal and adaptive to changing situations” (Stohl & Cheney, 2001, p. 368). In an attempt to preserve them, organizational members formalize participatory and democratic processes into institutional structures (decision-making rules, procedural formulas,

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

215

codes of conduct, conflict-management regulations, etc.). This can be seen as a manifestation of a value of materialism—an attempt to create something tangible and material from the spontaneous intangible (i.e., spiritual) and emergent process of participation. Much like the rigid rules imposed in the adaptation paradox, the codes and rules created in the paradox of formalization are an attempt to create a standard by which to measure the success of the participatory process, which, of course, negates the spontaneity required for the creativity which creates the very excellence the participatory process is intended to produce (divergence between measurable productivity and mission/purpose/excellence). Moreover, the formalization of participation processes is unmistakably the application of the value of linearity, where every step is planned ahead of time and leads directly to the next step. This linear formalization supplants the self-reflexive and inherently circular process of creative spontaneity that it is ostensibly designed to preserve. Two more divergences are immediately apparent. First, since the participatory process is spontaneous and primarily takes place in verbal interaction during meetings, the formalization of rules for this process belies a discomfort with the spoken word. Clearly, the written version of process rules, formulas, and regulations bedecking the walls of meeting rooms (Stohl & Cheney, 2001) provide a great deal more comfort for organizational members. However, again, these rules suppress the spontaneity and creativity of the spoken word within which lie the power of participation. Finally, a divergence between reductionism and inductivism is apparent: the formalization of participatory process reduces the participatory process to formulaic statements which prevent emergent (inductive) participatory processes—again, the very processes these formulas are intended to preserve. Paradoxes of Agency. This category of paradox concerns the individual’s sense of efficacy within the system. Specifically, these include the paradoxes of responsibility, cooperation, sociality, and autonomy (Stohl & Cheney, 2001). The paradox of responsibility addresses the fact that reward and compensation schemes often do not reinforce effective participatory communication. “Organizations that implement new team structures often continue to appraise and reward behavior at the individual level” (Stohl, 1995, pp. 208–209). When incentive systems are individually based, as is commonly the case, there is no motivation for the cooperative behavior required for effective team performance. Instead, the system rewards those who act autonomously. Regarding the paradox of responsibility, we can easily identify several divergences between the triangular and circular cultural structures. Most obviously, the divergence between individualism and collectivism surfaces. In short, people are motivated to act individualistically when reward systems

216

CHAPTER 6

are individualistically based. Although the organizational form in question (the team structure) is circular and would promote collectivistic behavior, the individually based reward system is triangular and promotes individualistic behavior. A related divergence is that between measurable productivity and mission/purpose/excellence in that productivity is measured individualistically and linked to those individually based rewards; whereas, the excellence, sense of purpose, and mission accomplishment afforded by teamwork remains unrealized. In the paradox of cooperation, Stohl (1995; Stohl & Cheney, 2001) identifies an interactive dynamic she calls “participate by not participating” (Stohl, 1995, p. 209). She illustrates this cyclical action with excerpts from interaction in a quality circle at a large manufacturing plant. As the leader plays the role of delegating tasks and giving pep talks about the value of the participation program, the workers increasingly play their roles of accepting, but not completing, assignments. In this way, “the interaction produces and reproduces a cooperative paradox, insofar as in order for the workers to cooperate with the manager they must not participate and let the manager do the participating” (p. 209). Stohl’s language—speaking of producing and reproducing—clearly reveals her implicit structurational approach. Although she does not speak directly of the interpenetration of contradictory cultural structures, her discussion of this production and reproduction of interaction patterns lends itself well to our discussion of cultural divergence. In her description of the interaction dynamic “participate by not participating,” Stohl (1995) reveals a process of meetings in which the exchange of information and assignment of tasks is primary (and dominated by the manager) and where very little active participation, in the communal teambased sense, occurs. This is an unambiguous divergence between the triangular rule/resource of effective information gathering/dissemination and the circular rule/resource of communalism. Workers participate, but not communally in circular fashion; their participation reinforces the triangular process by which managers gather and disseminate information regarding organizational tasks. Stohl’s conclusion to her description of the paradox of cooperation reveals yet another divergence between the triangular and circular rules/resources we have identified—that of the triangular rule/resource of reductionism and the circular rule/resource of inductivism. As the paradox of cooperation is interactively produced in their communication, many of the potential advantages of worker participation—increased support networks, the creation of level spanning linkages which open up communication channels more generally in the organization while enhancing employees awareness of the “big picture” and increasing overall organizational knowledge—are lost. (p. 210)

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

217

Worker participation is reduced to a manager-dominated process in which workers see their role “as coming to the meeting and ‘letting the people in charge talk to the guys up front’ ” (p. 210). The inductive process of increasing networks and creating linkages that enhance worker awareness of the big picture is defeated almost before it has begun. Instead, the triangular value of reductionism prevails. The paradox of sociality arises when organizational members are highly motivated by and committed to participatory processes. As a result, individuals become so involved in so many activities that they lose their focus and their performance suffers. The social aspect of participatory work overwhelms organizational members so much so that the social aspects of their personal lives also suffer (Stohl & Cheney, 2001). Again, several divergences are apparent: task/relationship; individualism/collectivism; self-reliance/interdependence; and efficiency/communalism. As organizational members relish and seek out the relational aspect of participation, they lose their ability to effectively accomplish the tasks that precipitated the relationships. Likewise, individuals become so engaged in the collectivistic and interdependent relationships and the communalism of participatory processes that they take on too much, allowing themselves to become overwhelmed with the tasks associated with these relationships. As a result, they cease to function individually and misplace their self-reliance as their efficiency and performance suffer on the tasks for which they are responsible. The paradox of autonomy is described as the sacrifice of individual agency to the collective (Stohl & Cheney, 2001). Whether through a clearly defined contract or by evolving practice, individuals in democratic organizations may find themselves largely absorbed by the organization, thus experiencing a violation of the principle of ‘partial inclusion.’ This principle suggests that in all cases except for total institutions, it is an individual’s role rather than the individual as a whole that is contained within the social boundaries of the organization . . . such absorption of the self may infringe on individual efficacy—especially the possibility for the member to alter the very organizational structure to which he or she adheres. This is a tremendous irony in many democratic organizations. (pp. 377–378)

Most obviously, individualism/collectivism; self-reliance/interdependence; and dualism/holism diverge here. Paradoxes of Identity. This category concerns issues of membership, inclusion, and boundaries. Specifically, these include the paradoxes of commitment, representation, and compatibility (Stohl & Cheney, 2001). Stohl (1995; Stohl & Cheney, 2001) identifies the paradox of commitment “whenever compelled conformity becomes the sign of commitment” (p. 206). Stohl cites a case study by O’Connor (1993) who found that organizational mem-

218

CHAPTER 6

bers voicing disagreement with or reservations about participatory design efforts were viewed by management as ignorant and uncommitted. The managerial “solution” to this “problem” was to design persuasive campaigns; those who remained unconvinced were labeled saboteurs. The paradox is that only an employee who is committed to organizational outcomes will voice dissent. “By voicing an alternative position employees are often demonstrating (rather than negating) their commitment to the process” (p. 206). Several divergences of triangular and circular rules/resources can be seen in this paradox. Primarily, management can be seen as individualistically invoking dichotomous logic and dualism in opposition to “dissenting” employees collectivistically invoking continuous logic and holism. When the paradox of commitment is in operation, management’s philosophy seems to run along the lines of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” There is no room in this individualistic, dichotomous, dualistic reasoning for an employee response that manifests a collectivist commitment to organizational objectives while voicing disagreement with the managerial plan to accomplish said objectives. Dichotomously, there is room in the logic only for agreement and disagreement; and dualistically, the values applied to these two categories are that agreement is good and disagreement is bad. In triangular fashion, management appears to view “commitment” as sycophancy—commitment is operationalized as unquestioning deference. However, understood through more continuous, holistic reasoning, employees who openly question the process set out by management for achieving goals would be seen as highly committed. A continuous logic reasons that there are gray areas between agreement and disagreement; holistically, loyalty is not equated with conformity. In circular fashion, “dissenting” employees appear to view commitment as a responsibility to apply critically thoughtful assessment to organizational processes and voice their concerns. By definition, such feedback is circular. Because the perception of disloyalty is rooted in disagreement between hierarchical levels, divergences between hierarchy and unity and between authority and experience can also be identified. “Dissenting” employees attempt to bring a unified view to organizational process that management perceives as violation of the chain of command. As employees express their experience-based reservations about the re-design of organizational processes, management feels a challenge to their authority. A related divergence can be identified between the triangular rule/resource of competition and the circular rule/resource of common good. Simply put, under the paradox of commitment, management defines disagreement as competition, and because that competition is vertically intraorganizational—a challenge to authority and a violation of vertical hierarchy—it is seen as antithetical to organizational goal achievement. Employees voicing

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

219

disagreement with organizational practices, however, view their dissent as grounded in interest in the common good; they are concerned with designing the best plan to achieve organizational goals. Yet another divergence can be found between the triangular value of objectivity and the circular value of intersubjectivity. Management expectation of unquestioning followership seems rooted in an assumption that there is one best way to achieve organizational goals and that they (upper managers) occupy the required objective position from which to design such processes. Employees who voice their disagreement with the organizational plan, on the other hand, seem to operate under an expectation that “participation should engender constructive conflict as people are expected to be open, express disagreement, and provide alternative points of view which will result in new and better insights and solutions to problems” (Stohl, 1995, p. 205). Such philosophy is by definition bound up with a high value placed on intersubjectivity. The paradox of representation arises because the redesign of organizational communication practices often involve participatory groups in which workers are identified as representatives. As representatives meet with different levels of management, new communication patterns and networks that develop . . . have the paradoxical effect of making the workers no longer think like workers. . . . [W]orkers who have the most access to the participatory system, which is explicitly designed to increase workers’ voice, become the very people who are least likely to represent the workers’ voice.” (Stohl, 1995, p. 208)

Individuals in such positions become detached from the very group they ostensibly represent. Their organizational identification becomes dialectical; they are workers, yet they have access to information and communicative networks that ordinary workers are not afforded. “The very activities associated with representative participation decrease the likelihood that the representatives who are talking to management represent the workers’ viewpoints” (p. 208). Often, the resulting representation becomes even more narrow than what had previously existed under the old organizational structure. As with the other paradoxes, we can identify several circular/triangular divergences. By far the most apparent are the divergences between individualism/collectivism and self-reliance/interdependence. This paradoxical identification process can be seen as stemming from the values of individualism and self-reliance inherent in the triangular organizational culture. Because the worker representative’s identification is individualistically based and his or her existence is self-reliant (triangular), his or her shift in identity is unavoidable; identity change is based on the person’s individual experi-

220

CHAPTER 6

ence (individualism), and in a triangular culture one is expected to be dependent on no one (self-reliance). The cultural structure of the participatory process, on the other hand, rests on circular assumptions of collectivism and interdependence: the individual “worker” is assumed to be able to represent “workers” as part of that collectivity and is treated as interdependent with them for her or his daily functioning. The participative representation process selects an individual from a defined group to represent the group, treating the selected individual as in essence a microcosm of that group. If the selected individual’s identification is collectivistically based and her or his daily functioning is interdependent with that collectivity, she or he is more likely to be that microcosm of the group. In addition, his or her identity, because it is interdependent with the worker collectivity, will be less likely to shift in a direction that mirrors management. The paradox of representation seems to exist precisely because triangular organizational cultures that embrace the rules/resources of individualism and selfreliance exist in divergence from circular cultural structures embracing the rules/resources of collectivism and interdependence upon which successful participatory representation rests. Moreover, the circular structure of representative participation is intended to give voice to worker concerns, invoking a circular rule/resource of humanism. The paradox of representation predicts that those who represent the workers will progressively over time provide input that is inconsistent with workers’ experiences. This detachment occurs, according to Stohl (1995; Stohl & Cheney, 2001), as the worker representative increasingly identifies with management. The worker representative can thus be said to progressively objectify and depersonalize workers as she or he becomes less and less identified with them. The organizational culture can thus again be seen to reproduce the triangular cultural structure, in divergence with the circular aspects of the imposed new form. Additionally, a divergence between linearity and circularity is easily identified. The traditional triangular organization is structured in the image of a pyramiding hierarchy with clear lines of sanctioned vertical communication. The imposition of a participative program in the form of representative participation is an attempt to impose a circular communication pattern on this triangular structure (see Fig. 6.6). The worker representative is placed in the position of following a circular path of communication between and among all levels of management and his or her now-ersatz peers. (In fact, she or he ceases to have peers save for other worker representatives.) In this divergence between the deeply ingrained linear communication pattern and the newly imposed circular communication pattern, the worker representative’s identity shift can be seen as a way of “falling in line” (reproducing linearity). The circular component of the structure has no means of support when deeply ingrained communication patterns repro-

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

221

FIG. 6.6. Participatory representation as a circular communication pattern imposed on a triangular organizational form.

duce the linear form forcing the individual into a communicational role that more closely resembles those that were previously existing, shifting his or her role according to those pre-existing lines. In attempting to diagram this imposition of circular communication on a traditionally vertical organizational hierarchy embodying linear communication, we essentially replicate the difficult blend (representing the interpenetration of contradictory cultural structures) depicted as superimposed triangle and circle in Figs. 3.1, 5.1, and 5.6. If the vertical organizational hierarchy in Fig. 6.6 were replaced with a simple triangle, the figures would be identical. An Interjection: Applying the Baseline Model Enough evidence has been presented here to warrant a return conceptually to our baseline model. Recall that in Fig. 1.1 a black triangle representing Eurocentrically based traditional U.S. corporate organizational form/design is superimposed over a white triangle representing European-American culture. The resulting figure is an evenly shaded gray triangle termed a natural blend. A close look at corporate restructuring to more circular models of organizational design reveals the imposition of circular structures of organizational design over triangular structures of both organizational design and organizational (human) culture, as has been discussed earlier (see Fig. 6.6). This can be depicted in a figure that essentially depicts a function that is commutative to the one depicted in Fig. 3.1 that displays the interpenetration of European-based (triangular) organizational design with the human culture of a predominantly African-American organizational member-

222

CHAPTER 6

FIG. 6.7. The organizational system resulting from a participatory organizational design imposed on a traditional organizational form and its attendant organizational/corporate culture.

ship. Figure 6.7 thus applies the baseline model, displaying the process that unfolds when a participatory (circular) organizational design is imposed upon a traditional (triangular) organizational form and its attendant organizational/corporate culture. This application of our baseline model of interpenetrating incongruent structures would predict the difficulties documented and explicated by Stohl (1995) and later by Stohl and Cheney (2001) in the form of a set of paradoxes—as organizational members at all levels of the pre-existing hierarchy are likely to reproduce the triangular structure in divergence with the newly imposed circular design. Back to Stohl and Cheney’s (2001) Paradoxes Stohl and Cheney (2001) present four more specific paradoxes that continue to resonate with our theoretic construction of cultural divergence. As before, we shall continue to explain these paradoxes and apply our conception of divergence to them. The last paradox in the category of Paradoxes of Identity is the paradox of compatibility. Stohl’s (1995) original description gets to the heart of our definition of divergence, unmistakably describing the very cultural incompatibility that we have conceptualized as divergence: Variations in national culture affect beliefs about the way work should be organized, the manner in which authority should be exercised, the ways in which organizational members should be controlled and rewarded, the career aspirations of organizational members, and so on. When participation programs are implemented in national cultures where the central values contrast greatly with the fundamental premises of participation, workers are put in the paradoxical position of being required to act in ways that are incompatible with their “natural inclinations” (i.e., the normative view of their culture). . . . The paradox of incompatibility . . . arises whenever the processes of

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

223

participating do not match the prevailing organizational cultural milieu while simultaneously reflecting the organization’s desires. (pp. 210–211)

Successful participation is described as the alteration of the organizational culture (everyday practices, communicative expectations, and central organizational values) to the degree that hierarchical patterns are eliminated. Often (according to Stohl, 1995) the very objective of a participatory program is to change an organization’s culture, but naturally, “participation works best in those organizations where the culture is already compatible with participatory goals” (p. 211). Paradoxes of Power. This final category of paradox concerns the locus, nature, and specific exercise of power to the organization. Specifically, these include the paradoxes of control, leadership, and homogeneity. The paradox of control encompasses numerous divergences between triangular and circular rules and resources that we have identified in our work. To explain this paradox, Stohl (1995) explains ways in which workers in participation programs internalize and intensify organizational control mechanisms. She cites two case studies (Barker, 1993 and Stohl & Sotirin, 1989) that demonstrate ways in which oppressive systems of concertive control develop and are maintained in team systems. In a case study highlighting absenteeism, Stohl and Sotirin (1989) document increasing worker resentment of the inflexibility and pressure interactively produced by the team design in an organization where teams were authorized to demand and evaluate absence accounts. In the system studied, absenteeism was virtually eliminated in the short term; however, Stohl and Sotirin (1989) consider the intensity of the intrateam control mechanisms to have quite negative effects in the long term. The paradox is that participation programs are explicitly intended to empower workers, but as controls become even more rigid and inflexible than they were in traditional bureaucracies, the innovative flexibility and responsiveness that are foundational to participation are lost. Second, workers may begin to withdraw from the participatory mechanisms as they experience the loss of control rather than the empowered position that was promised at the outset. (Stohl, 1995, p. 212)

Stohl (1995, citing Barker, 1993) contends that in team-based structures high employee identification, high consensus on values, and personal connections “create a powerful system of ‘concertive control’ in which workers control and monitor themselves to an even greater extent that found a typical bureaucratic organization” (Stohl, 1995, p. 212). It is our contention that we can delve far deeper than identification, values consensus, and personal connections that create oppressive concertive control, examining the proc-

224

CHAPTER 6

esses by which, in the interaction that constructs these things, individuals invoke cultural rules and resources embedded in their triangular cultural history that are incompatible with the cultural rules and resources of a circular organizational design. In so doing, they reproduce the triangular structure that contradicts and usurps the structure of the circular features of the imposed design. The circular structure would be produced and reproduced by interaction that promotes shared responsibility rather than control. To regain the control they perceive to have lost, team members replicate triangular structures of authority, rather than producing and reproducing circular structures grounded in the power of team-member experience. In doing so, they reproduce triangular structures promoting a vertical hierarchy that subverts and undermines the unity that would help to uphold the circular structure. At the same time, team members neglect the attention to their relationships that is crucial in constructing shared responsibility, value of experience, and unity; instead, they invoke control, vertical hierarchy, and authority in their pursuit of task accomplishment. They then evaluate their success with the triangular notion of measurable productivity rather than a more holistic sense of mission, purpose, and excellence. In so doing, they preclude the collectivism, interdependence, and interest in the common good that would help to reproduce circular structure, remaining, rather, in pursuit of individualism, self-reliance, and competition. Applying our theoretic construction of cultural divergence brings a great deal more insight to Stohl’s (1995; Stohl & Cheney, 2001) paradox of control. Our earlier discussion identifies control, vertical hierarchy, task orientation, authority, measurable productivity, individualism, self-reliance, and competition as the most salient rules/resources of triangular culture in play. The circular culture underlying team-based organizational design embraces contradictory rules/resources, respectively: shared responsibility, unity, relational orientation, experience, mission/purpose/excellence, collectivism, interdependence, and common good. Stohl’s (1995) and Stohl and Cheney’s (2001) discussions of control, like Barker’s (1993), do not explore the very interpenetration of contradictory cultural structures that we theorize is at the heart of these paradoxes. Faced with the prospect of self-direction, team members previously embedded in a triangular organizational design with an attendant triangular culture invoke triangular rules/resources that reproduce triangular structures rather than invoking circular rules/resources that would reproduce the circular structure of the team-based organizational design. We contend that it is from this basic interpenetration of contradictory structures—or divergence—that the paradoxes arise. Barker (1993) dramatically illustrates the result of using traditional management control practices in a team-based structure (invoking triangular rules/resources in a circular organizational form). In his case study, team

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

225

members replicated traditional management control mechanisms in the microcosm of the teams. Although the outcome was positive at first, it soon deteriorated to an oppressive environment that tightened the iron cage of rationality and concertive control. Team members more rigidly controlled and more closely monitored each other than their managers in their traditional hierarchy had. Barker (1993) documents the ways in which “the teams concertively reached a value consensus that, in turn, controlled their individual and collective work” (p. 422); discursively turned “their value consensus into normative rules that the new workers could readily understand and to which they could subject themselves” (p. 424); and then stabilized and formalized these emerging rules into a tight and rigid form of concertive control. The paradox of leadership expresses the challenge of facilitating, fostering, and leading participation efforts without controlling them. Stohl and Cheney (2001) cite copious research that documents the importance of strong leadership in the participatory process. Clearly, control and shared responsibility diverge as organizational managers, leaders, and other members attempt to enact full participation that is appropriately managed. In addition, hierarchy and unity are obviously in divergence. Finally, the dualism of leaders and followers diverges from the holism of a fully integrated participatory organization. Finally, the paradox of homogeneity is related to the commitment paradox, yet with emphasis on the controlling nature of group definition. The homogeneity paradox “is that the very unity that helps to maintain a democratic organization or give life to democratic practices also may be its limiting factor” (Stohl & Cheney, 2001, p. 389). Stohl and Cheney liken this paradox to Janis’ (1982) notion of groupthink, where consensus-seeking displaces fruitful disagreement. In the paradox of homogeneity, the very homogeneity that provides efficacy blinds the group to alternative viewpoints. The group’s homogeneity provides a sense of comfort with agreement that makes disagreement difficult to appreciate. In addition, heterogeneity becomes discouraged. When this occurs, the group seeks to control heterogeneity and divergently loses the sharing of responsibility that depends on fruitful disagreement. Likewise, unity becomes defined merely as agreement when it is imposed in such a hierarchical fashion, and the full power of deep unity is lost in the ensuing process of divergence. Finally, as in the commitment paradox, disagreement is treated as competition that is antithetic to the common good, when in fact disagreement is essential to the common good. Summary. Stohl and Cheney’s (2001) paradoxes illustrate our application of the construct of divergence to European and European-American organizational systems that are restructured to more circular/democratic organizational forms. In examining the 14 paradoxes, we have been able to

226

CHAPTER 6

identify divergences on all 20 of our continua (Tables 1.1 and 3.2). Our construct of divergence is unmistakably related theoretically to Stohl’s (1995; Stohl & Cheney, 2001) concept of paradox. The phenomenon of organizational divergence, therefore, although discovered through an investigation of African-American organizations, is not a function of African-American organizations themselves, but rather is indeed rooted in the interpenetration of discrepant (such as triangular and circular) cultural structures. Divergence can be seen to occur regardless of which “shape” represents organizational form.

WHY DIVERGENCE HAS A MORE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS As mentioned previously and further illustrated here, when it occurs in the context of the predominantly African-American organization, the phenomenon of divergence impacts organizational functioning far more severely than when it occurs in the context of the predominantly European or European-American organization. In part, this is explained by the tension between high relational value/collectivist ethos and abuses of power/authority historically experienced through slavery and discriminatory employment, social, and organizational practices—as discussed previously. This explanation for the more damaging effects of divergence in the African-American organization is further enriched, however, by considering a crucial distinction between the divergent African-American organization and the divergent European/European-American organization. Any organization’s design/form is imposed and then defended by those members who occupy its most powerful positions. The essential difference here is that in the divergent predominantly European/European-American organization (Fig. 6.7) it is the circular, or relationally unified, cultural structure that is privileged by these organizational power holders by virtue of their imposing it. Whereas, in the divergent predominantly African-American organization (Fig. 3.1), the circular, or relationally unified, cultural structure is not validated as a part of organizational functioning but, rather, is subjugated to the triangular, or vertically hierarchical, structure imposed and defended by the most powerful organizational members. Nevertheless, the relational and communal model still exists and permeates the organization. It is highly likely that the dynamics manifesting from the interpenetration of vertically hierarchical (triangular) and relationally unified (circular) structures differ, not in kind but in degree, depending on which of the structures is privileged by those who hold organizational power. This explanation is all the more full and rich when we are mindful of the historical

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

227

value of humanism/relational, collectivist ethos in tension with any organizational measures of subjugation (as discussed and documented throughout chapters 3, 4, and 5).

FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND PRESCRIPTIONS THAT VALIDATE OUR DOWNWARD SPIRAL Stohl’s (1995) and Stohl and Cheney’s (2001) documentation of paradox in organizational restructuring illustrates that the phenomenon of divergence occurs in predominantly European/European-American organizations. Quite likely, this is because all participatory interventions are naturally in tension with an individualistic society—instantly creating divergence (see Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler & Tipton, 1986, for a discussion of individualism). In our data from predominantly African-American organizations, divergence manifests in a downward communicative spiral (Fig. 5.1). Our next step, then, is to examine the trade literature in organizational restructuring to search for evidence of the existence of a similar downward spiral in the divergent processes of organizational restructuring for European and European-American organizations. Here, we examine the management literature written by field consultants, most of them academics as well, that focuses on team-based organizations. We have selected a sampling of management books; our criteria for selection was that they be written by consultants steeped in the field of implementing team-based organizational designs, empirically based, and anecdotally rich in description. We have chosen to focus on the team-based organizational design, as it is the most common contemporary form of circular organizing in transition from traditional vertical (triangular) hierarchies and bureaucracies. The prescriptive models put forth in these books for successful design of or transitioning to team-based/circular organizational designs strike at the heart of, and thus validate, our conception of cultural divergence. Each of the volumes discussed next explicates issues revolving around the incompatibilities between traditional and new organizational forms, explicitly identifying tensions between task and relationship, control and shared responsibility, hierarchy and unity, authority and experience, productivity measurements and mission/purpose/excellence, individualism and collectivism, self-reliance and interdependence, competition and common good, information and communalism, objectivity and intersubjectivity, linearity and circularity, etc., touching on almost all of the 20 dimensions we have identified in our work. A few of these writers even use triangular and circular diagrams to summarize the differences. We find empirically based discussions such as these invaluable as we begin to build theory around those dimensions in chapter 7. Our discussion here focuses on validation

228

CHAPTER 6

specifically of the downward spiral, reserving further discussion of the 20 dimensions identified in Tables 1.1 and 3.2 for chapter 7. Each of the volumes examined was rich with evidence of the downward spiral in the interaction of poorly functioning teams embedded in organizations transitioning from hierarchical to team-based design or implementing team-based units within traditional hierarchies/bureaucracies. As discussed earlier, however, the degree of damage on organizational function inflicted by the downward spiral is far less severe than that seen in African-American organizations. In the observations gleaned for our following discussion, the downward spiral (unresolved conflict, immobilization and erosion of goal-attainment) is obvious and significant. It slows down the work process, significantly decreases productivity, and stunts individual growth, but it does not do so to the extreme degree of tension observed in our data from African-American organizations, as discussed before. Why Teams Don’t Work. Robbins and Finley (The New Why Teams Don’t Work: What Goes Wrong and How to Make It Right, 2000) describe a process that mirrors our downward spiral. Their award-winning management book is a popular press volume based on their observations as a practicing business psychologist (a self-described “teams coach”) and a business reporter. Unlike most prescriptive volumes that focus on “how to do it right,” their book details, from their observations, the things that go wrong when team-based designs are poorly implemented. They conceptualize teams as working through stages, utilizing Tuckman’s (1965) familiar four stages of group development (forming, storming, norming, performing). They treat conflict as painful yet necessary and restrict their discussion of conflict to the “storming phase.” These treatments of team development and of conflict are of course, to the scholarly eye, rather anemic; however, we must be mindful of their intended audience. What is important to us for our purposes is their succinct description of what happens when the “chaotic process” of storming “mutate[s] into ongoing turmoil” (p. 236). “Perhaps the worst consequence of storming is that production may be at a standstill for weeks, even months at a time. For management, that is the bottom line of Storming—wasted time and blown projects” (p. 236). Here, they are describing a cycle quite similar to our downward spiral. Like most popular press authors, they restrict their definition of “conflict” to those communication processes that necessarily are negative, painful, and/or unproductive. They differentiate between confrontation and conflict, equating confrontation with directness and conflict with “having a chip on one’s shoulder” (p. 127). Offering a series of questions for the team to ask themselves during “storming” that amount to a recipe for problem analysis, Robbins and Finley (2000) suggest changing

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

229

the name of the stage from storming to clarifying. The storm is no longer an unpredictable, destructive thunderhead front that approaches, drops rain, and blows itself out. It’s more like an irrigation system that you can turn on and off at will, challenging the team on a regular, structured basis to root out the differences of opinion that lurk, unspoken. (p. 233)

They speak of teams “graduating” from the storming phase; presumably, they mean that the team has learned to successfully negotiate conflict. They discuss the phenomenon of the holdout—the individual on the team who becomes stuck in the storming stage. “The team finds itself unable to go on to the next stage—the holdout has them all by the shirttails, keeping them in place while he storms on” (p. 235). Their solution to this problem is to force compliance or rid the team of the difficult individual. This is a decidedly individualistic approach to a collectivistic process, but however dogmatic they may remain in some ways, their conclusions based on their anecdotal observations document the existence of the downward spiral (Fig. 6.8) in team development in predominantly European-American U.S. organizational environments. Almost every chapter in this book, in discussing the pitfalls of poorly implemented team-based designs, validates our downward spiral (Fig. 6.8). Robbins and Finley (2000) utilize case studies to talk about interteam competitiveness stemming from a lack of interlinked goals that erupts into “recriminations and reprisals” and “anger and multidirectional finger-pointing” (p. 37) that develops, in turn, into months-long delays and millions of dollars wasted. Further, Robbins and Finley (2000) discuss unresolved conflict over responsibility for unpleasant tasks (“hot potatoes”), claiming that such conflict stems from role ambiguity. As these unpleasant tasks remain undone, they create immobilizing emergencies—the group is constantly putting out

FIG. 6.8. The downward spiral of communication resulting from a participatory structure imposed on a traditional organizational form and its attendant organizational/corporate culture.

230

CHAPTER 6

fires instead of accomplishing objectives. Another common process with hot potatoes is that someone takes them on without complaint, but resents having done so. The resentment festers for a while before it erupts suddenly and with quite negative consequences. The authors go so far as to call this dramatic turn “the Robbins–Finley Conflict Switch” (p. 56) and link this phenomenon to workplace violence. Their description of “turf wars” is the opposite—conflict/competition over attractive tasks. This type of conflict also stems from role ambiguity. As people fight over who gets the plum assignments, no one can complete them, and objectives are unmet. The cycle is clear: unresolved conflict, immobilization, stagnation of development. Furthermore, Robbins and Finley (2000) claim that remnants of centralized control lead to conflict over who makes decisions; decisions go unmade and missions are not accomplished. Uncertainty about empowerment in the new system (which they call boundary mismanagement) leads to confusion and conflict about what authority and/or leverage the team has. It is deeply depressing to the team to go to all the trouble of learning how to solve the problem, only to be paralyzed, unable to implement the solution, because it doesn’t know if it’s allowed to. Or worse, to implement the wrong (but defensible) solution because it doesn’t think management will go for the right (but ambitious) one. On the other hand, it is terrifying for management to empower people to make decisions in advance without any assurance those decisions will be sensible or defensible. Many an empowered team, thinking its decision-making authority to be vast and absolute, learns to its chagrin that its empowerment was really more of expression, a figure of speech, than a blank check. (pp. 48–49)

Another validation of the downward cycle can be seen in their description of inappropriate policies and procedures. Specifically, policies and procedures that are outdated do not work in a team environment. Too many companies and too many teams live a double life—their life by the book and their real life. When the book and reality diverge too sharply, they acquire separate lives. People who perform well in the actual organization go with the flow of the organization; people who performed better “by the book” will cling to it, chapter and verse, stifling their own growth and creativity. Those who snicker at policies and procedures manuals are really snickering at their corporate culture. The company may say these binders describe the company—but people know better. Their organization, and they themselves, are living a lie. . . . Bad rules have a corrosive effect on the bond holding teams and entire enterprises together. . . . Manuals become the fiefdom of certain, otherwise powerless, centralized functions [that will] occasionally make a religion out of the big book, because it is all they have. Sections are individ-

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

231

ually dated, amendments are marked, reprints are shipped out once a month— at times one wonders if the true purpose of the organization is to maintain upto-date policy manuals. (p. 59)

Robbins and Finley (2000) also identify personality differences, conflict, and misunderstandings as a significant source of difficulty. Their approach here is grounded in a relational understanding. They warn that if such problems are not dealt with the team will flounder, move in wrong directions, and eventually self-destruct. They also discuss several difficult personality types, even suggesting that sometimes these surface as a manifestation of suppressed conflict in team processes. Robbins and Finley (2000) discuss at length the ambiguity of leadership in a team-based environment. They have observed that conflict rooted in this ambiguity leads to team paralysis. Their description of this paralysis describes our downward spiral quite dramatically: Things don’t happen. With no guidance, team members resort to a machine approach to getting work out the door. “When in doubt, automate.” Pile up product! People are upset, disillusioned, and hostile to their own enterprise. When work does get done it has a predictable character: mediocre. There is genuine despair among the team. . . . Eventually they either explode in anger or implode in despair. Or worst of all, they decay in a lifeless orbit. Commitment and energy drain away. Slowly, individuals begin to drift away from the team. By the time the team figures out it’s dead, it’s really dead. But it started dying the moment its leadership came into question. (p. 90)

Robbins and Finley (2000) also talk about “a toxic teaming atmosphere” that wastes resources, destroys morale, sacrifices outcomes, and prevents development. A toxic teaming atmosphere is brought about by interteam competition (particularly when upper management creates competition over resources or encourages competition for awards), forcing people into teams (here they cite the disastrous quality circle movement at Honeywell in the 1970s and early 1980s), and poorly constructed teams. The toxic teaming atmosphere amounts to recurrent unresolved conflict, which is followed by paralysis and inability to achieve development—again, closely resembling our downward spiral. Interpersonal difficulties are also discussed as they relate to mistrust. Mistrust can be rooted in inconsistent goals, poor communication, poor decision making, perceived disloyalty, lack of accountability, lack of recognition, lack of respect, and/or lack of empowerment (Robbins & Finley, 2000). The mistrusted individual is put out of the loop, ineffective, and unable to perform tasks. The result is a loss of confidence, rapport, and the very team relationship.

232

CHAPTER 6

When trust is gone, it must be replaced by control—rules, regulations, structure, three-ring notebooks. The team spends as much time policing itself as doing its job. . . . The irony is that control ultimately fails to control. . . . A team that comes up empty in the trust department will start to think like a lawyer— not what works, or is best, or what meets the customer’ s needs, but what technically complies with what is asked of us. (p. 152)

Robbins and Finley’s (2000) work is notable in that it describes in detail the symptoms of poor implementation of circular organizational structures. For that reason, it was reviewed separately from other “manuals” aimed at practicing managers that are more positively focused, describing how to design participatory organizational forms from the ground up and describing the positive outcomes of doing it well. Robbins and Finley validate our conception of divergence especially as it manifests in the downward spiral. Other Prescriptive Volumes. Because the focus of most volumes of this type is not on poorly implemented circular organizational forms, they are not organized around descriptions of problems of poor implementation (that might then be traced to divergent processes)—their focus is on avoiding problems altogether through good implementation of the team-based design. Still, in bits and pieces, their descriptions of trouble spots, pitfalls, and difficulties reveal the phenomenon of the downward spiral. Rayner (1993) begins his book (Recreating the Workplace) with a lengthy discussion of contemporary demands for organizational restructuring. He describes the ways in which the traditional (what we have called triangular) perspective with its central focus on control “trivializes the importance of adaptation and responsiveness” (p. 31) necessary in contemporary business environments. Of particular interest here is his depiction of a “disaster spiral” wherein a dramatic change in business demands is met with a response from corporations using their known strengths (vertical hierarchy, authority, control, etc.—the hallmarks of the Taylor/Weber philosophy). Because of the fundamental change in business demands, these traditional “strengths” do not operate as such, creating poor results, the organizational response to which is to tighten controls “to strengthen existing systems and practices” (p. 28), which, in turn, creates more poor results, responded to by more tightening of controls, creating more poor results, leading ultimately to disaster. This disaster spiral is strikingly similar to our downward spiral; the fundamental difference is that our downward spiral is at the individual level of organizational member communication and Rayner’s disaster spiral is at the organizational level of corporate strategy, illustrating the way in which a mismatch between the nontraditional demands of the contemporary business environment and the traditional organizational form/design creates a negative spiral. Our downward spiral de-

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

233

picts the results of a mismatch between the same traditional (triangular) organizational form and the internal demands of a nontriangular organizational membership. We might speculate here that the nontriangular organizational membership is thus well-suited to the nontraditional business environment—with a potential that cannot be realized, of course, unless it is matched with and supported by a nontraditional organizational form. Rayner (1993) describes the traditional organization as control-oriented, hierarchical, depersonalized, bureaucraticized with little to no coordination between independent units, individualistic, and other characteristics that match our description of triangular organization. In contrast, he describes the high-performance work system (HPWS) as team-oriented and flexible, emphasizing shared authority, shared responsibility, and interdependence. “The friction between these two extremes can ignite a firestorm of difficulty when attempting to implement the team-based approach into an existing organization” (p. 36). Even more striking, in his illustrative figures he depicts the “existing organization” as a triangle, the changing organization as the overlay of circle and triangle, and the “transformed organization” as a circle. To be fully effective, he advocates the organizational change must be wholly transformational. Creating a parallel structure—such as quality circles—may do little to change the practices and culture of dominant organization. By utilizing natural work groups, the emphasis is fundamentally changing the way the dominant structure operates. . . . The focus of high-performance practices is to change the dominant power structure of the organization. . . . The team structure cannot be thought of as a temporary body or one that is merely making improvement suggestions. (p. 94).

He emphasizes that the nature of the transformational organizational change he advocates is dramatic, high risk, and “attempts to alter the culture” (p. 77) of the organization. “It is the dominant structures and processes—in effect, the core of the organization—that must be changed if an effective transition to high-performance systems is to succeed” (p. 96). The core team transforms the organization, challenging “current organizational boundaries, existing power structures, and even the span of control” (p. 94) functional managers have in making decisions. Rees (How to Lead Work Teams, 1991; Teamwork from Start to Finish, 1997) states that within a team, “unresolved conflict leads to less-than-adequate performance, resentment, and lack of motivation” (1991, p. 41). In addition, she describes another kind of recurrent conflict—that between teams and their organizational superiors (actually teams’ perceptions of the expectations of their organizational superiors)—that sets off the downward spiral: Sometimes team members try to perfect their work, not being content to deliver anything less than a stunning piece of work to their organization. The

234

CHAPTER 6

members can become stymied by the problem, or become locked in disagreement over what the solution or next step should be. The team may arrive at a good decision, but fearing the reaction the organization will have to it, keep working the decision to make it more palatable. Sometimes a team is told to go back and rework its decision, because the decision was not the decision the organization wanted. (p. 128)

Rees (1997) describes another phenomenon that sets off the downward spiral—unrealistic time constraints imposed by upper management: When a team is not given enough time to work on a project, it does not have enough time to work as a team to define goals and strategies or to develop as a team. In such cases, a few action-oriented team members may dominate and take over the work of the team, or the team may come up with a quick, pat solution. The synergy and cooperation needed for effective teamwork will not be realized. Team members may leave the team feeling burned-out or frustrated with “teamwork” and may not look forward to the next team effort. (p. 128)

Both the problem of ambiguity in organizational expectations and that of unrealistic, handed-down demands are rooted in conflict between upper management and teams about the degree of authority vested in the team structure. Conflict over authority/empowerment of the team undermines morale, effort, and productivity (Rees, 1991, 1997). Here, we directly see divergence between interpenetrating structures played out in the invocation of contradictory rules/resources that sets off the downward spiral. A British management writer, Eales-White (Building Your Team, 1995), posits several stages of team development: confusion, conflict, control, cooperation, consensus, and commitment (pp. 67–73). The behaviors and actions that take place in the conflict phase dominate in poorly led groups, and well-performing teams “can revert [to them] under the impact of [negatively perceived] changes” (p. 69). He describes the ways in which these kinds of behaviors derail team progress and development and lead to poor performance and downward trends in productivity. Most telling in this volume is a list of negative factors of group work generated by a team of managers (Eales-White’s clients). This list includes the following (with original British spelling and organized here in the order of the downward spiral as we have depicted it). Recurrent/unresolved conflict: too much control by the most senior person present; individuals creating their own power base and splitting the group; individuals deliberately undermining the authority of the new leader; your ideas having cold water poured on them by senior group members; unsure of your own role, feeling isolated and excluded; too much talking and not enough listening; hidden agendas and behind-the-scenes manoeuvers.

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

235

Immobilization: laziness by members of the group—a lack of commitment; lack of decision taking—a weak leader; too much team-talk and not enough action; poor time-keeping; relationships too cosy—frivolity and social chitchat, but little focus on the task; too much information kept with the group—not publicizing themselves enough nor sharing information with other relevant groups/individuals; too conservative—individuals always carrying out rules they’re comfortable with—no learning; no sense of direction nor purpose; too much action and fire-fighting and not enough thought; no agendas for team-meetings. Erosion (or stagnation) of system/development: poor group performance, feeling tarred by the group brush, especially when, as leader, you have gone along with the majority view against your better judgment, which turns out to be right; endless “red herrings”; having to sit through teammeetings, when your expertise/contribution was only required for small part; secretaries at meetings who were excluded or didn’t want to be there; insufficient expertise to complete the project/task properly. In another management manual, Parker (Team Players and Teamwork, 1990) draws upon such seminal human relations scholars as McGregor (1960), Likert (1961), Argyris (1964), Blake and Mouton (1964), Lewin (1951), as well as the Hawthorne Studies by Elton Mayo and his colleagues. In doing so, Parker (1990) provides a description of ineffective teams (from McGregor, 1960) that also closely resembles our cycle: The “atmosphere” is likely to reflect either indifference and boredom . . . or tension (undercurrent of hostility and antagonism, stiffness and undue formality, etc.). . . . Little is done by anyone to keep the group clearly on the track. . . . Different people have different, private, and personal objectives which they are attempting to achieve in the group, and . . . these are often in conflict with each other and with the group’s task. . . . Some members feel that the leader or other members are constantly making judgments of them in terms of evaluations of the contributions they make, and so they are extremely careful about what they say. . . . Disagreements are generally not dealt with effectively by the group, they may be completely suppressed. . . . On the other hand they may result in open warfare. . . . Actions are often taken prematurely before the real issues are either examined or resolved. There will be much grousing after the meeting by people who disliked the decision to fail to speak up about it . . . the minority remains resentful and uncommitted to the decision. Action decisions tend to be unclear—no one really knows who is going to do what. Even when assignments of responsibility are made, there is often considerable doubt as to whether they will be carried out. . . . Criticism . . . is embarrassing and tension-producing . . . [and] often appears to involve personal hostility. . . . Criticism of ideas tends to be destructive. . . . Personal feelings are hidden. . . . The group tends to avoid any discussion of its own “maintenance.” (Parker, 1990, pp. 21–23, citing McGregor, 1960)

236

CHAPTER 6

Here, we begin to see that downward communicative spirals have plagued participatory programs since their inception. The early human relations theorists upon whom Parker (1990) bases his work focus on participatory groups in traditional bureaucratic organizational forms. In yet another manual, Gardenswartz and Rowe (Diverse Teams at Work, 1994) identify conflict as an interpersonal problem that “intimidates the whole team,” a roadblock that “could stall the team” because people cannot do good work when they are feeling devalued (p. 202). “Conflict is a natural, normal part of every team’s existence. The difference between high-performance teams and those that are ineffective is that top performers have a process for dealing with it” (p. 176). These authors then organize common and predictable ineffective responses to conflict in the categories of denial, suppression, and violence—all of which stem from unresolved conflict and which lead to poor team outcomes; their observations therefore validate our downward spiral. As an aside, we must note that Gardenswartz and Rowe’s (1994) focus is cultural diversity and that they are unfortunately quite visibly biased toward what they implicitly cast as the superior American approach to conflict. A chart promising to compare “mainstream American” approaches to conflict with other cultural approaches to conflict does just that—literally: “Other cultures” are unspecified and combined in one column that lists a single set, labeled (of course) “other cultural approaches.” What they call “mainstream American” culture is unproblematically and implicitly cast as superior. As discussed in chapter 1, we view the cultural comparison checklist approach as unfruitful in general; in this specific case, we take particular exception and find it most appalling that these authors so cavalierly catalogue cultural diversity into the dichotomous categories “mainstream American” and “not mainstream American.” This notion of mainstream American and other persists throughout the volume. Sherriton and Stern (Corporate Culture/Team Culture, 1997) offer yet another set of consultants’ observations. These authors directly address how to match corporate culture with team culture, comparing hierarchical patterns, organizational patterns, and team patterns in a way that strikes directly at our notion of divergence. They note the “invisible” nature of culture, discussing cultural differences between hierarchical organizational cultures and team cultures that reflect our dimensions (including hierarchy/ unity, self-reliance/interdependence, individualism/collectivism, and competition/common good—although they do not use this specific language). They state rather obviously that resolving conflicts, managing differences, and coming to consensus are major challenges facing most teams. These tasks “reflect the struggle in making the transition from past organizational norms and accepted behaviors to the new paradigms necessary for formalized teams to function at their best” (p. 19). In particular, they dis-

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

237

cuss role ambiguity or disagreement as contributing to role conflict which underutilizes team members’ talents, creating an atmosphere of apathy or annoyance that significantly impedes team functioning and development. The parallel to our downward spiral is quite clear. Sherriton and Stern (1997) discuss the transition from traditional to team-oriented culture in a way that also parallels our own understanding of divergent organization. They discuss “employee conditioning” to “the deeply ingrained attitudes and behaviors perpetuated by the traditional hierarchical organization” (p. 60). Team members who are so conditioned are said to exhibit what Sherriton and Stern call the “traditional employee syndrome.” Their description of this “syndrome” again echoes our downward spiral. Those suffering from “traditional employee syndrome” wait for direction and don’t initiate unless their leader pushes them. They’re quick to relinquish responsibility for work and results to the leader, rather than share responsibility. They are not forthcoming with concerns or questions, but they complain that the leader hasn’t told them or given them something they needed. Some point fingers and complain about management and “what a joke this teamwork or empowerment thing is.” Others carry around tremendous anger about it. Many have become noncontributors, keeping a low-profile and hoping they will be left alone. (pp. 60–61)

Sherriton and Stern (1997) point out that during the transition from traditional (triangular) to team-based (circular) organizational forms, cultural change must be taken seriously. Either too little or too much empowerment can set off the spiral of conflict/immobilization/diminished outcome: A lack of empowerment leads team members to suppress disagreement with their managers, stalling projects and sacrificing outcomes/development; too much empowerment leads employees to openly clash with their managers in ways that cannot be resolved, immobilizing the managers and thus diminishing progress. Sherriton and Stern explain these two cycles: A serious example of passive, unempowered employees was a high-tech company whose past managers forced employees into a mind-set of extreme caution. A number of project teams felt strongly that their projects were a waste of resources and would not succeed in the end, but members refused to tell their new managers. When we asked why they didn’t speak up, team members without exception looked at us incredulously and said, “No way are we about to tell them that this isn’t a good idea!” They were all going down a road they shouldn’t have, dragging everyone and their resources with them, for fear of speaking up. Some other teams in the company were unclear about the goals for their projects, but for fear of looking stupid they continued to work without asking for clarification. . . . An extreme contrast to the previous example is another company where employees felt so empowered that they would balk at any direction from management. Management guidance was inter-

238

CHAPTER 6

preted as interference. Employees’ reactions were so vehement that they ultimately intimidated management into not giving information and direction. (pp. 89–90)

In both of these examples, it is clear that the two extremes of unresolved conflict between team members and their managers (suppressed disagreement and vehement balking) stem from cultural divergences surrounding authority. In the first example, managers expect team members to share their authority, whereas the members are operating under an assumption of managerial authoritarianism. In the second example, managers again expect team members to share their authority, whereas team members are operating under an assumption that they hold complete authority. In the first example, team members are immobilized; in the second, managers are immobilized; in both cases, goal attainment is significantly diminished and the organizational unit is stagnated. Applying the Downward Spiral to Our Baseline Model It is by no coincidence that the downward spiral we identified in our data— unresolved conflict, immobilization, and erosion of the organizational system and of human development (see Figs. 5.1 and 5.2)—is clearly apparent in Jackson et al.’s (2000) case study of organizational structural change and the field observations we have described. Hence, we can continue to apply our emergent theory, noting the similarity between the downward spiral identified in our data from predominantly African-American organizations and the downward spiral apparent in the review of practical literature on teams and organizations. When a participatory (circular) organizational design is imposed upon a traditional (triangular) organizational form and its attendant organizational/corporate culture, the very downward spiral identified from our data often arises. Figure 6.8 displays the downward spiral of communication resulting from a participation program imposed on a traditional organizational form and its attendant organizational/corporate culture. Here, the erosion of the organizational system and human development can be interpreted, in less severe cases, as inability to achieve development and/or downward trends in productivity/development. Applying the Complete Model It takes just one additional step to completely apply our emergent model. Given our conception of problematics and the ways in which they play out in organizational life, our application of our emergent theory fully expands

THEORETIC APPLICATIONS

239

FIG. 6.9. Human communication in the organizational system resulting from a participation program imposed on a traditional organizational form and its attendant organizational/corporate culture.

the baseline model in Fig. 6.5. Placing the downward spiral (Fig. 6.8) arising from the difficult cultural blend (Fig. 6.7) at the center of this full baseline model, we depict in Fig. 6.9 human communication in the organizational system resulting from a participation program imposed on a traditional organizational form and its attendant organizational/corporate culture. As in the African-American divergent organization, the function of leadership is a particular area of difficulty. In transition to team-based organizational forms, team leaders rely upon their triangular cultural understanding of what makes good leadership. “What makes good leadership” in triangular structures is quite different from “what makes good leadership” in circular structures. In traditional hierarchies (triangular organizations), “good management control” based on authoritarian philosophy equals good leadership. In nontraditional team-based (circular) organizational forms, “good management control” based on authoritarian philosophy equals poor leadership. In a participative (circular) structure, leadership must be based on a philosophy of facilitation (Frey, 1995). Facilitation aims at employee (team member) development. Hence, facilitative leadership is that which functions to provide opportunities for learning which translate into employee development—movement toward self-direction and shared responsibility— and organizational development. Traditional (triangular) control practices

240

CHAPTER 6

(i.e., giving orders, imposing deadlines, monitoring quality, withholding information, imposing sanctions) from an authoritarian philosophy undermine the team structure and create an oppressive environment in which individuals are under incredible personal stress (Barker, 1993; Grenier, 1988; Mumby & Stohl, 1991).

CONCLUSION Thus far, this volume has developed a comprehensive model based in a lengthy data set, developing a theoretic construct of organizational divergence, and applied this emergent body of theory. As regards the predominantly African-American organization, the solutions to the problems analyzed here are neither simple nor straightforward. Organizational restructuring to more circular, or relationally unified, forms is most certainly part of the answer. However, the complex history of cultural and societal oppression, internalized oppression, economic and social barriers, ad infinitum, must be addressed through intensive consciousness-raising. In addition, organizational members of predominantly African-American organizations would greatly benefit (as would members of all organizations, particularly those that are culturally diverse) from a conscious understanding of underlying cultural processes in the production of organizational behavior. This is addressed further in chapter 7. Our examination of theory and observations of organizational restructuring of predominantly White (European and/or European-American) organizations from traditional vertical hierarchies to more circular, relationally unified forms validates our conception of the divergence—rooted in the interpenetration of contradictory cultural structures in an organization’s functioning—as the underlying phenomenon driving many dysfunctional organizational processes. In this way, we have fully expanded our baseline model to derive a more comprehensive theory of the divergent organization. In chapter 7, we explore the implications of our work for treatments of organizational diversity and for African-American organizations. Chapter 7 then focuses on the implications of our work for the development of a humanistic theory of organizational form by “bending” the 20 continua represented in Tables 1.1 and 3.2 into a conceptualization of harmonious balance, representing what had been conceptualized as polar opposites as, rather, mutually constitutive modes of organizational function. We also link such theory-building to our emergent model.

C H A P T E R

7 Where Do We Go From Here? Conceptualizing the Convergent Organization

THE TASK BEFORE US Our work here has made it abundantly clear that organizational form is deeply embedded in culture and that, in particular, the hierarchical bureaucratic organizational form so common for contemporary corporations and institutions is deeply embedded in European-based culture—with its attendant rules and resources (as represented in this volume by Table 1.1). This basic fact of the constitution of social life can no longer be ignored as our attention as a field turns to the relationship between culture and organization. Contemporary treatments of diversity focus almost exclusively on organizational member demographics as markers of cultural diversity (see chap. 1), but a full understanding of the interplay between culture and organization cannot be had without diversity being a core value that dictates unearthing the cultural foundations of organizational form(s). By taking such an approach, we have been able to define organizations with highly homogenous member demographics as culturally diverse. In so doing, we have discovered the phenomenon of the divergent organization. The emergent theory developed in chapters 1 to 5 and applied in chapter 6 revolves around the construct of divergence, as explicated in chapter 3. The divergent organization is plagued with intractably difficult processes that pull organizational members into relentless downward communicative spirals, eroding the organization increasingly over time. At this juncture, the question for us becomes how to develop the beginnings of a body of theory that would represent the convergent organization— an organization for whom the interpenetration of multiple cultural struc241

242

CHAPTER 7

tures that would otherwise diverge in contradictory ways is made harmoniously symbiotic. We seek here to develop the foundation upon which to build theory and intervention similar to the notion of dyadic third-culturebuilding found in the intercultural communication literature (Belay, 1993; Casmir, 1993; Shuter, 1993; Starosta & Olorunnisola, 1995), but far more expansive. We aim to encompass the culturally embedded nature of organizational form/design. Further, we intend to describe ways in which each of the 20 continua identified in our research can be conceptually “bent” so that they cease to have “poles,” and so that those “polar extremes” are seen to converge harmoniously in symbiosis—conceptualized not as unified opposites, but rather as mutually constitutive, removing the notion of opposition completely. It is through the explicit assumption of the underlying cultural processes of all human action and interaction that such theory-building can take place. Similarly, intervention must rely on organizational members’ conscious explicit understanding of such processes in everyday life and must be grounded upon creating organizational members’ mastery of the skills of intercultural communication competence (e.g., Chen, 1989). It is our contention that the development of a basic theoretic vocabulary from which to conceive of multicultural organizing can generate methods of intervention through which the ideal of the convergent organization may begin to be realized. Here, we shall attempt to create such a vocabulary by reconceptualizing the “polar opposites” that result in divergent organizational processes as mutually constitutive. It is our contention that theoretic language such as “contradiction,” “dialectic,” or even “diunital logic” is implicitly embedded in Eurocentric dualistic reasoning. Perhaps, in other words, some things function oppositionally because they are conceptualized that way. Even Afrocentric theorists fall into this trap as they attempt to explain circular logic to (and from within) a linearly oriented Eurocentric academic system. As McPhail (1998) astutely points out, such thinking quickly evolves into essentialism.

Chapter Overview We begin with a consideration of the implications of our work for organizational diversity, illustrating the ways in which our particular approach to studying the predominantly African-American organization has provided in the same breath unique insight into not only the interplay of culture and organization, but the processes of contemporary corporate restructuring and cultural diversity as well. We also address implications for African-American organizations, discussing the structurationally based phenomenon

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

243

of organizational divergence and considering ways in which we might design intervention strategies for such organizations. We then turn to the applied literature, examining the ways in which empirically based prescriptive modeling for organizational restructuring/design accomplishes the conceptual task of converging heretofore-conceived contradictory cultural structures. In so doing, we examine the ways in which that literature implicitly identifies cultural structures that resonate with those we have identified as triangular and circular, treating them as mutually constitutive; thus we shall embark upon the task of “bending” the 20 continua (represented by Tables 1.1 and 3.2) into ovular shapes—resulting in a cultural structure that is neither triangular nor circular, but something altogether new that encompasses both and provides for their congruent interpenetration. Finally, we revisit the notion of the problematics and the communicative spiral, morphing our baseline models into more general humanistic models that provide the vocabulary upon which to build theory.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY It is clear that successful management of a diverse organization must move beyond models of accommodation and assimilation and embrace a truly multicultural approach. As stated previously, such an approach must be grounded in a conscious, explicit understanding of the cultural processes underlying all human action and interaction. In other words, all that we do and say as human social beings is driven by culture. The very ways in which we perceive, interpret, and approach the world, events, and each other are culturally embedded. Models of intercultural sensitivity and training programs based on them (e.g., Seidel, 1981; Yum, 1989) are driven by such assumptions. An important step in managing the diverse organization is already in place in many corporate and institutional quarters: intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communication competence training. (See Chen & Starosta, 1998, for a comprehensive overview of intercultural communication competence literature.) What we offer here that is new is the application of the notion that the organizational form/design itself is embedded culturally. As such, multiculturalism cannot truly be achieved without organizational leaders and other members coming to terms with this fact. Organizational diversity initiatives are not only commonly based on surface-level markers of diversity, they also are commonly limited to training interventions that focus on the interpersonal level—often not going beyond a short training session or briefing (Golembiewski, 1995; Kirby & Harter, 2001). Lacking in such an approach is the recognition that the organizational form/design itself implicitly privileges the dominant culture and marginalizes members of nondominant cultures.

244

CHAPTER 7

Organizational/corporate approaches to diversity that embrace a managerial metaphor (i.e., “diversity management”) are both driven by and perpetuate Eurocentric managerial domination (Kirby & Harter, 2001; see also Deetz, 1995, for discussion of managerial domination). The process is circular as the dominant status of one culture (set of rules/resources) over another, in turn, reproduces the organizational form, further entrenching its hegemony. Without conscious, explicit, and sometimes painful reflection of the ways in which the organizational form privileges and is privileged by dominant culture members, the process remains invisible—treated by organizational members in general as the natural order of things. Negotiated Order One theoretic approach that would offer tremendous insight into this process, and thus assist in its deconstruction, is negotiated order theory. (See Geist, 1995, for an excellent concise summary.) The negotiated order view challenges traditional models of organization by providing an emergent and interactive view of organizational reality. Negotiation is simply the interaction engaged in by organizational actors—“their everyday practices and strategies” (Geist, 1995, p. 50, citing Maines, 1982, and Strauss, 1978). “Often negotiation is a strategic response to what individuals perceive as system contradictions (e.g., autonomy vs. constraint or diversity vs. unity) (Geist & Hardesty, 1992)” (Geist, 1995, p. 50, emphasis added). As such, this theoretic tradition is well-suited to enrich our understanding of culturally divergent organizational processes and the ways in which such divergence is negotiated. Negotiated order research analyzes social structure as “something which can be examined as a product of interaction that is created, maintained, and changed through interactive processes” (Maines, 1979, p. 527, cited in Geist, 1995). Negotiated order theory, in short, explicitly defines structure as dynamic with a central focus on social control and the reflexivity between structure and process (Maines & Charlton, 1985; Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher, Ehrlich, & Sabshin, 1963). Essentially, negotiated orders are identifiable as those arenas where individuals’ communication and the structural arrangements of organizations inevitably come together and mesh into a mutually inclusive realm (Maines & Charlton, 1985). The structured process perspective of negotiated order theory openly addresses the powerful relation between structure and process . . . by considering both the conditions which direct individuals’ conduct and limit their options and the differential interpretations of individuals [in interaction]. (Geist, 1995, p. 46)

Negotiated order theory has been traced in origin to symbolic interactionism. Day and Day (1977, cited in Geist, 1995) describe two lines of the-

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

245

ory: “(1) a theory of the professions, focusing primarily on the negotiated work of professionals and (2) a theory of the organizations in which professionals work, focusing on the complexity of interaction in organizations” (Geist, 1995, p. 46). According to Geist (1995), negotiated order research has been widely conducted in the medical setting, where such interactions between varied professions are common. Negotiated order theory, with its focus on the professions, is limited in its analysis to the negotiations of social order between and among actors who exist at equivalent levels of status as organizational power holders—and who often are privileged to act outside the organization’s scripted lines of authority. As such, the focus seems to be on negotiations of order that take place between empowered organizational elite. Future research could apply negotiated order theory across the levels of triangular organizations, examining the ways in which social order is created and sustained in the interaction of organizational members with varying status and degrees of empowerment. By considering the organizational form/design itself as a cultural structure and focusing on the negotiation of its order multiculturally, negotiated order theory has great potential for developing a deeper understanding of diverse—and divergent—organizing. Organizational Form as Culturally Embedded Successful multiculturalism is grounded upon mutual respect, cultural awareness (sensitivity and competence), and a deep commitment to the time-consuming process of creating working relationships that embrace cultural difference as a core value and a rich resource for problem solving, thus validating the positive worth of difference and adopting diversity as a core organizational value. The conscious recognition of the cultural embeddedness of organizational form/design is crucial. Without it, organizational form is treated as culturally neutral, producing and reproducing (as well as being produced and reproduced by) the cultural dominance of particular modes of organizational interaction (grounded in the culture of that form)—and thus privileging organizational actors who are members of that culture. The (explicit or implicit) treatment of organizational form as culturally neutral produces and reproduces (and is produced and reproduced by) the hegemony of the dominant culture. Organization thus becomes both the site and surface for communication that engenders and sustains cultural dominance, precluding multiculturalism in any form. By examining the ways in which the European-based organizational form of predominantly African-American organizations interpenetrates divergently from the primary cultural structure of their members (creating quite disruptive interactive cycles), we have been able to explicitly examine the cultural embeddedness of organizational form/design. It is our contention

246

CHAPTER 7

that the phenomenon of the divergent organization is driven in part by the implicit assumption of the cultural neutrality of organizational form/design. Thus, the first step in the creation of a conceptualization of the convergent organization is the explicit awareness and understanding, by both organizational observers (theorists) and members, of the culturally suffused nature of organizational form. Our focus here has been on European-based and African-based cultural structures. However, a more full consideration of multiculturalism must be grounded in and promote a humanistic approach. Following the example set by Nichols (1976, 1987) in his full model that includes Asian and Native American cultural philosophies, a well-developed multicultural approach must broadly include all human cultures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS The difficulties faced by African-American organizations, as represented in our research, stem in part from cultural divergence springing from the interpenetration of contradictory cultural structures resulting in a downward communicative spiral that can be devastating to the organization. As we have argued earlier, the assumed cultural neutrality of the organizational form/design seems to contribute greatly to the problem. In chapter 6, we document the same structurational process of divergence during restructuring of predominantly European or European-American organizations. Clearly, the structurational process of the interpenetration of contradictory structures does not alone explain the severity with which the downward spiral seems to strike the African-American organization. For African-American organizations, this process seems to have greater potential to sink the organizational entity into deep pits from which some cannot seem to rise. As discussed in chapter 6, for African-American organizations, the phenomenon of divergence is intensified by the ways that organizational practices stemming from the Eurocentric hierarchical structure subjugate the relational/humanistic model of organizing. (See also chapters 3, 4, and 5.) Intervention What, then, can be done to intervene and resolve the seemingly intractable communication and structural concerns of many African-American organizations? The initial step we espouse should by now be obvious: Any intervention should be grounded in consciousness-raising of organizational members so that they consciously and explicitly recognize the cultural

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

247

embeddedness of the organizational form as well as cultural embeddedness of their own action (and interaction). It is important to note that these organizations are very committed to mission, purpose, and excellence and are undergirded by a relational/communal cultural value. In conjunction with raising consciousness about the cultural embeddedness of organizational form and organizational interaction, an organizational change agent can initiate consciousness-raising about the unique features of African-American organizational experience and assist the organization in exploring methods of communicating an organizational form that is inclusive and respectful of its membership and their cultural values. Based on an understanding of the underlying cultural processes of all human action/interaction, an organizational change agent could use a combination of models—such as Asante’s (1987, 1988) Afrocentrism, Warfield-Coppock’s (1994, 1995) Afrocentric organizing, and Nichols’ (1976, 1987) axiological description of cultural differences—to discuss the ways in which circular organizational forms pursued by contemporary dominant-culture organizations are in fact grounded upon principles that are highly congruent with African-based cultural ideals. The promotion of involvement in the change process is crucial, where organizational units or departments would internally examine ways of functioning and collectively engage in restructuring organizational functions with an understanding of divergence and the downward spiral of communication. If the organization then finds little problem with divergence, it becomes exemplary in deepening processes and practices that would further facilitate meeting organizational goals and attaining human development.

TURNING DIVERGENCE INTO CONVERGENCE As previously stated, the most fruitful literature for directly examining the phenomenon of divergence—and how to create convergence—is the applied management literature focusing on organizational restructuring/redesign. Much of this work directly addresses the issues we have identified as divergent factors in our data. Here, we examine prescriptive theory-rich and empirically based models for organizational restructuring from (in our terms) triangular (vertically hierarchical) to circular (relationally unified) organizational forms. The literature, of course, exclusively addresses predominantly European or European-American organizations. There are a plethora of such texts from which to choose. We have chosen to limit ourselves to the line of scholarly research on U.S. domestic organizations generated by Edward E. Lawler III and his colleagues at the Center For Effective Organizations, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (USC). As a whole, this work (e.g., Galbraith, Lawler, & Associates, 1993; Lawler, 1986, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2001; Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1998; Mohrman,

248

CHAPTER 7

Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995; Mohrman, Galbraith, Lawler, & Associates, 1998) most directly (albeit sometimes implicitly) addresses issues salient to our purpose here and represents a decidedly scholarly viewpoint that is both theoretically and empirically rich. We review in detail two of these works (Lawler, 1992; Mohrman et al., 1995) chosen for their scholarly character and their central focus at the organization-wide level: prescriptions for organizational design/restructuring. These works provide rich description that strike at the heart of our central concern with divergence/convergence and allow us to illustrate the mutually constitutive nature of triangular and circular rules/resources embedded in successfully restructured organizational designs. In addition, they explicitly state that many of these “new” ideas and practices are not altogether new. In practice, what is new is the business imperative that demands such practices for survival and the wide scale with which they are being applied. In our conceptual work, what is new is our treatment of divergence/convergence. In one of his more recent works, Lawler (1996) summarizes six “new logic principles” for organizing, conceptualizing new logic organizing as a new era of management thinking. His conceptualization of new logic emerges from the copious empirical description represented by the prolific body of research generated by the Center for Effective Organizations at USC, and thus provides a rich frame for the detailed overviews (of Lawler, 1992, and Mohrman et al., 1995) we present later. Lawler (1996) contrasts his six new logic principles to six “old logic principles” of traditional bureaucratic organizing. Table 7.1 contrasts the old logic principles of bureaucratic organizing with the new logic principles of high-performance organizing. These principles are in essence integrating principles that revolve around the dissemination of power, responsibility, and accountability— TABLE 7.1 Lawler’s (1996) Six New Logic Principles Contrasted with Six Old Logic Principles New Logic Principles 1. Organization can be the ultimate source competitive advantage. 2. Involvement is the most effective source of control. 3. All employees must add significant value. 4. Lateral processes are the key to organizational effectiveness. 5. Organizations should be designed around products and customers. 6. Effective leadership is the key to organizational effectiveness.

Old Logic Principles 1. Organization is a secondary source of competitive advantage. 2. Bureaucracy is the most effective source of control. 3. Top management and technical experts should add most of the value. 4. Hierarchical processes are the key to organizational effectiveness. 5. Organizations should be designed around functions. 6. Effective managers are the key to organizational effectiveness.

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

249

rooted in an explicit understanding of the driving force of organizational form. With this framework in mind, we embark on our review of the two selected texts. Lawler (1992) systematically reviews major structural features needed for high employee involvement; Mohrman et al.’s, (1995) book presents a comprehensive empirically based design model. Both works, of course, derive prescriptive guidelines from rich descriptive observation. We examine the works in turn, illustrating the ways in which their prescriptions for organizational design (form) and organizational culture (human) are, in essence, interventions that subvert the negative process of divergence. Based on our examination of each text, we discuss the ways in which they seem to achieve convergence through illustrating “bending” of our continua (Tables 1.1 and 3.2). We then present a table summarizing the “bending” of the continua. Creating the High-Involvement Organization Grounding his discussion in the assumption that a successful organization will have a management approach and design that is congruent with societal culture, Lawler (1992) begins by setting up a contrast between two managerial/organizational design approaches: the control-oriented approach (triangular) and the involvement-oriented approach (circular). He argues that the involvement-oriented approach is “highly congruent with democratic values about decision-making and respect for individual rights . . . [And] directly aligned with the strong entrepreneurial bent in the American culture” (pp. 43–44). Conversely, he describes control-oriented model as based on a set of principles that exist in opposition to such democratic ideals as participative decision making, due process, freedom of speech, individual rights, and personal growth. Like so many other scholars of organizational restructuring, Lawler (1992) unfortunately uses oppositional language to describe the change. Lawler (1992) goes on to explain in detail features of organizational design that can achieve the high-involvement organization. These features include alternative work designs, work that is highly involving, organization/ improvement groups, person-based pay (as opposed to position-based), and performance rewards. Next, he discusses structural features necessary for the management of information and human resources, including open information channels, high-involvement management practices, support for positive managerial behavior, and union involvement. He closes his book with a synthesis, providing a comprehensive view of the high-involvement organization and discussing change strategies. We shall refrain from a discussion of change strategies, as our focus here is on the convergence created by new organizational form. It is important here only to note that Lawler (1992) insightfully points out that a successful

250

CHAPTER 7

transition to a high-involvement organization is a massive change in organizational operation that completely replaces the bureaucratic form. This is, of course, a theme that is repeated throughout his later work (e.g., Lawler, 1996, 2000, 2001). Integrated into such change must be managers, employees, union leaders, board members, and government. We limit our discussion here to Lawler’s (1992) description of high-involvement organizational forms as he has observed them in the field and his model for deepening the changes to further enhance involvement. In spite of his oppositional language, his descriptions and prescriptions exemplify organizational convergence. We illustrate later the ways in which the 20 continua created by the triangular and circular rules/resources in (respectively) Tables 1.1 and 3.2 cease to have polar ends—the “poles” becoming mutually constitutive. The “New Plant Approach.” Lawler (1992) describes the development of business units that allow an existing organization to build from the ground up a new organizational unit that begins with the premise of participative management. This account is based on actual cases. Although much of the description shows circular rules/resources replacing triangular ones, Lawler’s (1992) “new plant approach” also includes several characteristics that illustrate convergence of the divergent dimensions identified in our research (Tables 1.1 and 3.2). Later, we discuss Lawler’s (1992) ideas for deepening involvement that further illustrate convergence. First, however, we outline his “new plant approach” based on actual cases and demonstrate the ways in which they illustrate convergence. Selection of employees emphasizes full disclosure to prospective employees to about the nature of the job(s) and the nature of the management style. As such, employees are offered empowerment even before they are hired, offering them a chance to decide up front whether they want to work in a participative environment. This accomplishes a good fit between employee culture and organizational form, setting the stage for convergence. Furthermore, “a great deal of the selection process is handled by production employees. They interview and interact with the job applicants and ultimately make the decision as to who will join the organization” (p. 308). Often, applicants are hired long before the actual start-up of the new unit “so that they can be involved in determining personnel policies and establishing various procedures and work methods” (p. 308). Here, we can clearly see a deeply participative process that reveals convergence between hierarchy and unity, control and shared responsibility; authority and experience; dichotomous and continuous logics; youth and age; individualism and collectivism; self-reliance and interdependence. Production employees’ control (embedded in a flattened hierarchy that creates unity that reproduces the new hierarchy) over new employee selec-

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

251

tion is inherently a sharing of responsibility that, in turn, creates organizational control over applicant selection to ensure excellent fit. Likewise, employees with the best experience for making hiring judgments are those with decision-making authority in the process, and having that authority enhances their experience. Continuous logic and the mutually enhancing values of youth and age become apparent as (older) production employees interview, interact with, and ultimately hire (younger) job applicants; this creates a dichotomy between those doing new employee selection and those being selected (between the older and younger), which is made continuous as they all co-create policies, procedures, and methods. Individualism and collectivism converge in this process as well, as the applicant selection process is highly focused on choosing individuals who are most likely to fit and function well in a collectivistic working environment. Finally, production employees are expected to be highly self-reliant decision makers as they work to create an interdependent pool of workers who will also be self-reliant (from management). Second, Lawler (1992) advocates newly designed physical facilities, emphasizing the importance of physical layout: The new plants are notable for the degree to which they have an egalitarian physical workplace. Employees and managers tend to park in the same parking lots, enter through the same doors and eat in the same cafeterias, and, in some cases, the managers have minimal offices or no offices. The physical layout of many new plants is designed to facilitate teamwork around particular products or services. For example, rather than having assembly lines, the plants often have manufacturing cells that build entire products. (pp. 308–309)

Here, we see that the material, bricks-and-mortar features of the organization create and sustain a nonmaterial (spiritual) sense of egalitarianism facilitating teamwork that drives the creation of similar material structures. In addition, holism and inductivism are emphasized in ways that focus on particular products; such production dichotomizes (dualism) a team working on one product from a team working on another and reduces (reductionism) production to a focus on individual products by individual teams that then reinforces the holistic, inductive production process. Third, Lawler (1992) discusses job design, revealing convergence between control and shared responsibility; authority and experience; productivity and mission; individualism and collectivism; self-reliance and interdependence; dual and holism; linearity and circularity. Employees perform jobs that are challenging, involving doing a whole piece of work, and allow them to control how the work is carried out. Typically, this means that relatively self-managing work teams are responsible for the production of a whole product. They are self-managing in the sense that they

252

CHAPTER 7

make decisions about who performs which tasks on a given day; set their own production goals; and are often responsible for quality control, purchasing, and the control of absenteeism and employee behavior. Team members are expected to learn how to do all of the tasks that fall within the work area of the group. (p. 309)

The organization achieves production control through shared responsibility, which is only possible through the control employees have over their own work process and themselves (each other). Authority is created by the team’s growing experience, made possible by self-authority. Productivity is enhanced by the participative mission that has been created by an emphasis on productivity. Team members are expected to work in a collectivistic and interdependent manner, which is only possible through the self-reliant skill-building of individuals; self-reliant individuals build those skills through their interdependent collectivistic process. Employees work on products holistically, creating a dualistic segmentation of their group from others working on other products—even those with similar process; it is this dualistic separation that creates the holistic approach to products. Finally, the linear process of moving a product from start to finish is made possible by the circular process of self-management, within which the team plans and executes such production; successful production then reinforces self-management. Lawler’s (1992) treatment of the organizational reward system reveals convergence between objectification (depersonalization) and humanism; individualism and collectivism, productivity and mission: Most plants that adopt the new plant approach evaluate the skills of each individual and pay each person based on the number and kind of skills they have. Typically everyone starts at the same salary, and as people learn more, they are paid more. All employees are considered salaried employees and no time clocks are used. Job security also is typically offered to all employees. (p. 309)

Pay structures are humanistically person-based, increasing with individual learning that is relevant to the organization’s mission; the link to learning objectifies (depersonalizes) the process by providing an externally observable measure (productivity), which in turn provides humanistic reward that promotes the collective effort. As reward structures are linked to training, Lawler (1992) emphasizes training as an important characteristic revealing, as described before, convergence on objectification/humanism, individualism/collectivism, and productivity/mission.

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

253

All the new plants place a heavy emphasis on training, career planning, and personal growth. This emphasis is usually backed up with extensive in-plant training programs and strong encouragement for employees to take part in training outside of work. A strong commitment to training and development of the workforce is a cornerstone of the management practices in the new plant approach and is supported by the skill-based pay system. (p. 310)

Finally, another feature of the new plant approach (Lawler, 1992) is that of organizational structure: One of the striking features of the new plants is their structure. These plants are characterized by very flat hierarchies and extremely wide spans control. Typically, the traditional foreman’s role is eliminated completely and multiple teams report to an area manager. Most plants have only two levels of supervision, although some large plants may have three levels. A flat structure is important because it helps assure that work teams will have the autonomy to manage themselves. . . . The new plant approach is also characterized by relatively lean staff groups. Work team members are given responsibility for areas such as quality control, employee selection, inventory management, and production scheduling that typically are done by staff specialists in traditional organizations. (pp. 309–310)

Several areas of convergence can be seen here. As already described, increased self-management and widened span of control encompass convergence of control/shared responsibility, hierarchy/unity, authority/experience, dichotomous/continuous logics, self-reliance/interdependence, dualism/holism, linearity/circularity and reductionism/inductivism. Moving Beyond the “New Plant Approach.” Lawler (1992) emphasizes that such plants, although they continue to be successful, “are not the best models of employee involvement. I think they fall short of what can be done” (p. 313). Specifically, he identifies a productivity involvement approach to management that heavily emphasizes “being sure that individuals have control over and information about their piece of the production process” (p. 313). He recommends a significant step beyond this type of involvement to involve individuals in the business process itself. In so doing, he recommends several organizational features. He first identifies the required organizational structure: “a flat organizational structure and the extensive use of self-managing teams” (p. 314). He goes on to describe a structure in which teams operate as “mini-enterprises,” handling a full scope of business issues. This also requires integration of functions across the organization. In our view, Lawler’s (1992) choice of the overused term “flattened,” although denotatively accurate, is unfortunate; he is describing an organizational structure that is light years from being a traditional vertical hierarchy. When functions are integrated and teams in-

254

CHAPTER 7

clude staff support members (i.e., engineers, accountants, etc.) so that they operate independently, the hierarchy becomes lateral. “Flat” connotes a vertical orientation; whereas, “lateral” connotes a horizontal orientation. In this model, a manufacturing team, for example, has responsibility for the entire process with respect to a particular customer. Customers order directly from the team, who deals directly with suppliers. Following delivery, the team deals directly with customers (e.g., via a toll-free telephone number printed on the product) regarding questions or problems with the product produced by the team. In addition, expertise on product development, design, manufacturing, marketing, and sales (for example) mutually inform one another in ways that enhance all of these areas. Here, we see convergence between linearity and circularity as the linear process of a product from conception to delivery becomes iteratively informed; we also see dualism and holism converge as product phases remain but become integrated more holistically. Several other areas of convergence are apparent. Team control creates shared responsibility, which sustains their control. A lateral hierarchy creates unity that reproduces lateral hierarchy. Self-authority creates highly experienced employees, who are then more able to hold authority. Teams producing the same product or providing the same service are separated from one another (dichotomous logic and dualism) so that they may provide continuous service and deal with products and customers in holistic fashion; this reinforces the segmentation of teams performing the same function from one another. This segmentation also creates competition between teams performing the same organizational function; by its very nature, such competition promotes the organizational common good, which reinforces the organizational structure that, in turn, creates interteam competition. By linking team members directly to the business process from beginning to end, their productivity is directly driven by the organizational mission; their productivity, in turn, drives the organization’s mission. This direct involvement in business process also converges “the bottom-line” and “the big picture” (reductionism and inductivism). Because individuals on the team are solely responsible for their specialized purpose (i.e., engineering, accounting, etc.), they must be highly self-reliant so as to function interdependently with the collectivity of the team. Team-based control over the entire business process requires a monosynchronic time orientation to meet customer demands and remain competitive; however, because the team’s orientation to time is internally rather than externally controlled, polysynchronic timeliness is simultaneously required. Likewise, teams must follow a linear process with customers using their circular structure. Lawler (1992) also discusses the “total team environment.” This moves beyond the “new plant approach,” which focuses on the use of teams at the production level but not in other parts of the organization.

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

255

Managers, office personnel, and staff support individuals have different jobs than in a traditional plant because they have to deal with teams, but they are not in a team structure. This inconsistency has created some problems and, in some respects, has limited the effectiveness of the new plant approach because staff support groups do not have the same kind of flexibility and performance gains that are characteristic of the production area. (p. 360)

Here, Lawler (1992) appears to be describing a phenomenon of divergence as multiple structures interpenetrate in incompatible ways. Lawler (1992) advocates instituting self-managing teams throughout all areas of the organization. So, for example, a manager responsible for three or four teams works interdependently with other managers responsible for other teams; such an organizational form deepens and strengthens all the convergences discussed because it removes intraorganizationally divergent structures. Inherent in a total team environment is the application of skill-based reward systems across the organization as well. Lawler (1992) also advocates reward systems based on organizational performance, not seen in the new plant approach. For employees to achieve a high level of business involvement, they must be accountable for business performance. Such reward systems (gainsharing, profit sharing, employee ownership, etc.) further deepen and strengthen convergences by integrating individuals with organizational structure and function. Finally, Lawler (1992) discusses the use of new technologies to improve communication and quality. As information becomes widely available, and individuals across the organization become more interconnected, integration and convergence is, of course, enhanced. At the time of his writing the work reviewed here, Lawler (1992) could not have foreseen the burgeoning of such technologies that has occurred since, and so in this way this particular part of the book is decidedly dated. In fact, the fast-paced advent of new information and communication technologies has created new organizational functions centered around such technology that both spring from and require the kind of interorganizational integration and high involvement Lawler (1992) describes. In his most recent work, Lawler (2001) discusses knowledge management strategies at some length. Designing Team-Based Organizations Lawler’s (1992) observations are based on industrial/manufacturing organizations. We now turn to another work (Mohrman et al., 1995) that focuses on knowledge work—another organizational type. Mohrman et al. (1995) present a model of organizational design, defining a team-based organization as “a dynamic, laterally oriented system in which teams and business units, in shifting configuration, enact an organizational strategy for succeeding in an increasingly demanding environment” (p. xv). In keeping with the

256

CHAPTER 7

entire body of research generated by the Center for Effective Organizations at USC (e.g., Galbraith et al., 1993; Lawler, 1986, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2001; Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1998; Mohrman et al., 1995; Mohrman et al., 1998), Mohrman et al. (1995) emphasize that the transition from the traditional, bureaucratic model requires redesigning the entire organization over years of “learning and iteration” (p. xv). In a reflection of our downward spiral, Mohrman et al. (1995) describe some of their clients’ experiences during this transition: “Team members need to be able to handle the emotional challenge presented by dependence on others and by the inevitable conflicts that occur when work is done in teams. . . . [For some] the transition was rough, and some were having serious difficulties adjusting to the organization” (p. 354). They state that feelings of anger, competitiveness, and powerlessness (which can be seen as unresolved conflict) preclude effective collaboration (which can be seen as an immobilization); collaborative relationships are required in the team-based setting to achieve goals and accomplish development. There is quite some attention devoted to strategically planning the transition. For our purposes here, we examine their treatment of issues that point to the phenomenon of divergence and their prescriptions for overcoming these issues, maintaining our present focus on organizational forms that create convergence. The Team-Based Structure. Mohrman et al. (1995) examine the differences between organizations that use teams (project organizations, functional organizations, and matrix organizations) and team-based organizations. In a project organization, teams are depicted as circles existing at one level of a traditional vertically hierarchical organizational chart; in such an organization the entire team reports upward in linear fashion to the same manager. Mohrman et al.’s (1995) diagram of the project organization consists of a triangle containing a vertically hierarchical box-and-line organizational chart with intact project teams circled at one level of the chart. In functional organizations, the team structure is “laid over” the vertically hierarchical organizational chart. Team members come together into these overlay structures on a project basis, maintaining their memberships and reporting relationships in their various formal units. Mohrman et al.’s (1995) diagram of functional organization is a triangle containing a vertically hierarchical box-and-line organizational chart with circled project teams that cross units. In the matrix organization, “cross-functional project teams report to cross-functional management teams” (p. 45). In their diagram of the matrix organization, Mohrman et al. (1995) show hierarchical ovals linked vertically. The team-based organization is, rather, depicted as nesting circles and ovals, allowing for all three types of teams previously discussed. The teambased organization emphasizes teams as the core performing units. The

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

257

graphic depiction as a nested diagram emphasizes the nested nature of relationships (individual as part of the team, which is part of the business unit, etc.) and implies the domain of authority for each performing unit. Depicting the organization as a team-based system enables the separation of scope of authority from our traditional notions of hierarchical levels or grades of jobs in a bureaucracy. . . . It is not necessary even for the members of the management team to be at higher hierarchical job levels than the members of other teams in the unit. It is necessary only that the team have authority to provide overall direction, to determine the overall design of the unit, and to carry out performance management responsibilities. Thus an organization can place individuals in those teams where their skills and knowledge can best be used, irrespective of what rung on a bureaucratic hierarchy they occupy. In fact, it becomes unnecessary to think of people as occupying a certain rung. In essence, hierarchy is redefined in terms of the scope and domain of the decision-making authority of the team within the system rather than in terms of a chain of individual reporting relations. (Mohrman et al., 1995, pp. 50–51, emphasis in original)

Most important for consideration here are the ways in which tasks and those who will accomplish them become clustered into a network of teams, each held collectively accountable for performance. The structure of the organization interweaves with and delineates these clusters of networks. We see here several ways in which triangular organizational rules and resources (Table 1.1) exist—by design—in convergence with circular organizational rules and resources (Table 3.2). For example, control is achieved through shared responsibility, which is possible only through teams’ control. Hierarchy is defined laterally (by scope of decision-making authority), thus creating unity, which then reinforces the lateral hierarchy. Authority is vested in those with experience, which they have achieved through decision-making authority. Individuals are held accountable for collective performance, and the collectivity depends on individual contributions. Finally, through the lateral system of authority, self-reliance is enhanced, which in turn enhances team members’ interdependence; and as they learn to depend on each other (interdependence), team members become more self-reliant as they strive to contribute to the team effort. Here, we have illustrated for several of our dimensions ways in which the two previously conceived “polar opposites” conceptually become mutually constitutive. Divergence/Convergence. Mohrman et al. (1995) discuss their discovery of a divergence/convergence cycle, occurring in phases. Each phase has one outcome that must be agreed to by all concerned. As the project proceeds, the divergence/convergence cycle deals with increasingly detailed and less global issues, since the earlier phases have provided

258

CHAPTER 7

general framework for the later phases. At the beginning of each phase, contributors bring their own worldviews: knowledge bases, preferences, work and decision algorithms, and experience. (pp. 53–54)

Mohrman et al. (1995) detailed several internal processes allowing the successful navigation of this cycle: opening up deliberations (surfacing individual perspectives, comparing data, generating multiple options, concretizing abstractions, including pertinent perspectives) and achieving agreement on shared frameworks (adopting team perspectives, analyzing data, evaluating options, concretizing plans and actions, clarifying decision responsibility, resolving conflict). In essence, although they are not directly addressing the specific cultural dimensions reflected in our work, Mohrman et al. (1995) recognize that “lack of alignment” (p. 56) impacts critically upon organizational success, and organizations that are structured/designed to encourage alignment/convergence will succeed. Implementation Concerns. Mohrman et al. (1995) prescribe five steps in their design sequence: identifying work teams; specifying integration needs; clarifying management structure and roles; designing integration processes; and developing performance management processes. It is not our purpose here to fully reiterate their prescriptions. Of most interest to us is their final section on implementation concerns. These include identifying new responsibilities and skills, defining empowerment, developing support systems, making the transition to team-based design, and facing the challenges ahead. In their discussion of identifying responsibilities and skills, Mohrman et al. (1995) examine responsibilities of the project team(s), the business-unit management team(s) within which the project team(s) exist(s), and the executive team. These three “levels” are, of course, conceptualized as layers of a nesting hierarchy rather than a vertical one, rather like a slice of onion. We see here again how hierarchy and unity are made convergent; by eliminating the vertical feature of hierarchy, replacing it with a lateral nested design, hierarchy promotes unity and vice versa. Note the great similarity to the hierarchical system of traditional Africa, as described in chapter 3. The project team plans and executes, integrates with other teams, manages team performance, improves team processes, escalates trade-offs as necessary, and influences business-unit direction and resource allocation. Team skills include technical/functional competence, cross-training, interpersonal/conflict resolution skills, decision-taking skills, learning skills, and leadership skills. At the business-unit management level of the nested diagram, responsibilities include designing the business unit, aligning business-unit goals and activities with corporate strategy, modeling the norms required for successful team-based organization, and orchestrating performance management processes. Finally, executive management responsi-

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

259

bilities include setting and communicating corporate strategy and goals, designing the organization’s structure and systems, orchestrating performance management of business units, and modeling team-oriented norms. Following the logic of the nested lateral hierarchy, each layer of the organization (moving outward from the center) is responsible for processes that are increasingly more abstract and that serve as a frame for the responsibilities of the layer(s) nested within them. In this way, it is explicitly illustrated that hierarchy and unity need not be divergent, but are seen here to converge; they are mutually defining when hierarchy becomes lateral. Mohrman et al. (1995) define empowerment as “ ‘the capability to make a difference in the attainment of individual, team, and organizational goals.’ Thus empowerment has two major aspects: direction and capability” (p. 279). Direction requires clarity, goal integration, and alignment. Most important is alignment among individual, team, and business-unit objectives—between the nested rings of the onion. This mutual understanding occurs in the context of a multidirectional dialogue in which managers share their higher-level goals (providing opportunities for questions, input, and possible revisions), customers and other key stakeholders offer their viewpoint, and team members have the opportunity to influence higher-level goals. Team participation in higher-level goal setting is crucial; it helps team members understand goals across systemic levels and helps to ensure that team objectives can be compatible with unit objectives. Teams might, for example, help management see that modifications in the business-unit goals are needed. Team members also need to have influence over the determination of their own team goals. Shared direction is developed by team members participating in team and business-unit goal setting. Our study found that a clear, well-aligned organizational direction contributes to employee beliefs about empowerment. . . . We found that a clearly defined, well-understood business strategy, goal alignment at multiple systemic levels, and measurable goals were positively related to efficacy. This sense of efficacy is strongly related to multiple performance outcomes. Teams whose members were confident that they could accomplish their goals were more likely to perform well, to be part of business units that performed well, to have satisfied members, and to demonstrate continuous improvement. (Mohrman et al., 1995, pp. 281–282)

Clearly, an organizational design that accomplishes alignment/convergence sets off an upward interactive spiral, as seen in this lengthy excerpt. This upward spiral depends, of course, on accomplishing empowerment—which consists of direction and capability. Direction-setting is the responsibility of the executive team. However, “in a team-based organization, business direction has to be broadly and deeply shared, owned, and understood, and teams and team members need to understand how their activities relate to the broader business strategy” (Mohrman et al., 1995, pp.

260

CHAPTER 7

283–284). Here, reductionism and inductivism converge as “the bottom-line” and “the big picture” are mutually defining. In setting direction, the executive team must invite input/reactions across all levels/layers and functions of the organization—converging dichotomous and continuous logics, as they remain separate in their task of formulating direction but that task is achieved through a continuous process of communication. Once they have formulated their business strategy, it must be clearly and broadly communicated. “The form of communication matters less than the fact that regular communication occurs” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 284). Mohrman et al. (1995) provide several examples including question-and-answer sessions, e-mail, newsletters, and education sessions. There is no traditional/bureaucratic focus on the written form of communication but rather a fluid recognition that clarity and regularity are most important features of communication, suggesting communication should beget communication in all forms and thus converging the written and spoken word. Mohrman et al. (1995) recommend the performance management process as an excellent opportunity to communicate and review direction across the organization. Each new team establishes a team charter, which “should include a description of the company’s goals, the business unit’s goals, and the team’s preliminary mission and goals. . . . The training used to develop teams can provide information that increases understanding of strategic and business-unit objectives.” (p. 284). Organizational change, as it occurs, must incorporate thorough communication that includes re-definition of direction and corresponding re-alignment of team, business-unit, and executive goals. Performance is then defined, in part, by participation in the determination of mission/goals. Here, it is the responsibility of business units and the executive team to provide the training necessary to ensure thorough understanding of business goals, and to ensure opportunity for participation during periods of change. Performance review then occurs at all layers of the organization, providing teams with feedback regarding their performance on their objectives, the objectives of the business unit, and the goals of the company as a whole. Finally, rewards should appropriately recognize accomplishment of said objectives. In this way, performance management intentionally focuses on business direction, and change is incorporated into its design. Such integration across the lateral nested hierarchy converges several of our dimensions: dichotomous/continuous logics, dualism/holism, and linearity/circularity. Teams independently (dichotomously) create their team charters with continual reference to higher order organization goals. Performance is then assessed in continual reference to this independently, existing charter; the team charter exists separately as dictated by those higher order goals at the same time that it is determined by them. Perform-

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

261

ance is thus assessed through participation in the mission. Continual feedback, which is by nature circular, is provided on the progress. As each organizational unit at each level progresses in a linear process (set goals, plan strategy, implement strategy, etc.) and change occurs, there is continual circular iteration of re-definition and re-alignment of direction and goals across organizational levels. Convergences of this nature is also seen in Mohrman et al.’s (1995) discussions of capability, managerial responsibilities for supporting that capability, and performance management. Mohrman et al. (1995) emphasize that team members must also build capability through knowledge and skills, information, resources, and authority. Business-unit and executive managers must provide opportunities for all of these things and vigilantly monitor and respond to needs related to them. Likewise, project team members are responsible for taking advantage of those opportunities, self-diagnosing, reporting problems, and requesting management response. Regarding knowledge and skills, business-unit and executive managers are responsible for providing appropriate team assignments to effectively allocate human resources. Team members must also have a thorough understanding of the knowledge of their teammates. The business-unit and executive management must provide opportunities for cross-discipline learning (including rotational assignments), as well as ongoing appropriate training and development opportunities. Reward systems should encourage enhancement of knowledge and skills. Furthermore, Mohrman et al. (1995) stress that business-unit and executive managers are responsible for providing information through a formalized communication infrastructure. Teams whose work is interdependent rely on such multidirectional sources of information. Most importantly, business-unit and executive management must foster an environment for open feedback regarding information needs of the teams. Likewise, business-unit and executive managers are responsible for providing access to resources needed by the teams. Priorities, of course, must be based on strategic objectives, and resource allocation systems should be designed with input from project teams. Finally, the scope of team activity must be defined clearly and teams must have authority for decision making within the scope. The definition of scope of authority should be part of the team charter. Project teams also are responsible to contribute to decisions at all systemic levels that impact them or that they have impact upon. Decision-making authority goes hand-in-hand with accountability. Managers need to hold teams accountable for the decisions they make; the members of the team should be jointly held responsible for the success or failure of the team. Even when team members have individual objectives (and most do), those objectives exist in the context of team objectives, and management communication about accountability should reflect this. (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 289)

262

CHAPTER 7

Support systems provide infrastructure for transformation, organizational integration, and performance management (Mohrman et al., 1995). Team-based orientations to support systems differ dramatically from those of the traditional organization. The team-based organization requires manager-independent rather than manager-dependent systems to support collective performance rather than individually oriented chains of command; lateral rather than hierarchical integration; self-managed dispersed control rather than management control; dynamic adjustment rather than stability; flexibility rather than uniformities; and enterprise-specific rather than general discipline models. “When designed to function in this manner, the systems to support the conduct of work also support the integration of work, serving as tools for teams that are self-managing their technical integration within and between teams” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 304). Due to their central importance for organizational goal achievement, Mohrman et al. (1995) give the most attention to support system needs for performance management. Performance management consists of defining, developing, reviewing, and rewarding performance—processes that are supported by a multitude of organizational systems. Performance definition is supported by the same systems to support direction setting. Team-based performance management systems depend on performance planning with input from all stakeholders in the team’s performance, resulting in clear expectations for team member performance. Performance development results in the creation of new capabilities, and so is supported by the same systems that support capability-building. Together, then, performance definition and performance development are closely integrated with empowerment (defined as direction-setting and capability). The performance review processes depend on support systems that encompass all systemic layers (individual, team, business-unit, organization), and vary according to the type of work (Mohrman et al., 1995). Some kinds of performance can be tracked and measured; whereas, other kinds of performance must be judged by those directly affected by it (i.e., customers— sometimes internal to the organization). In the latter case, performance data must be periodically gathered from stakeholders and made available to members of the team. Performance reward systems should support direction-setting and the logic of the organization: Individuals could (and generally should) be rewarded for the performance of all the performing units to which they belong and contribute. This implies a multilevel reward system based on team performance, business-unit performance, and organizational performance and may imply recognition of multipleteam membership. . . . The reward system in a team-based organization should reflect the fact that advancement in such an organization is more likely to involve lateral development than traditional “promotion.” . . . base-pay systems [should] reward and encourage multiple competencies. (Mohrman et al., 1995, pp. 311–312)

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

263

The design of support systems must do the following: prevent them from becoming bureaucraticized systems, separated from work/management; resolve tensions between empowerment and uniformities (trade-offs between microlevel flexibility and macrolevel commonality); and allow for changeability and adaptability (Mohrman et al., 1995). The transition from the traditional to the team-based organizational design is pervasive, holistic, and deep. The transition entails both technical design and social change. Mohrman et al. (1995) emphasize the process as one of organizational learning, specifically discussing the changes as grounded in organizational culture. They recommend a conscious examination of the organizational design features that “hold the existing culture in place” (p. 325) suggesting an implicit conceptualization of interpenetrating structures. They recommend implementation of a team-based design in three stages: laying the foundation, generating the design, and implementing/assessing. In the first stage, the social change process is begun prior to changes in technical design. By viewing implementation as a learning process, a number of design decisions are best left to be made by the teams themselves, generated through the assessment process. “When the experiences of the teams themselves influence the direction that the design takes, team members can feel more involvement in the success of the new organization” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 329). Here, we clearly see the mutually constitutive relationship between experience and authority. Team members’ experience drives their authority over the design process; their authority, then, increases the value of their experience. To create and maintain integration of the organization as a larger performing system, management must be vigilant to the assessment process. “In our study, the organizations that were moving most rapidly to an effective team design were those that built in the assessment at regular intervals” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 331). Managers are charged with the challenge of modeling learning activities to create shared understanding of the processes and norms of the new organizational form. Assessment is an essential part of clarifying and redesigning during the transition process. During transition, assessment is not a process within the performance reward system, but rather is a tool for the identification of areas that require redesign and/or support. Such redesign or support must necessarily be a participative process. Mohrman et al. (1995) recommend an iterative process of change that works from the center of the organization (project team level) outward. In other words, project teams are introduced as integrating structures. Through assessment and correction, networks of interrelated teams are created. Through further assessment and correction, teams are organized as performing units, which again through assessment and correction are built into “business units as mini-enterprises with a constellation of teams”

264

CHAPTER 7

(p. 333). In short, the transition to team-based organizational design involves a multitude of changes that cannot be made simultaneously. A design team representing all levels of the organization needs to determine how to stage and sequence the transition, integrating participatory processes throughout the transition. According to Mohrman et al. (1995), typical problems in the transition to teams occur in the following areas: designing teams, embedding teams in the organization, developing team and management capabilities, and aligning the context. Problems in the area of team design include work fit, charters, and ownership. Difficulties with embedding teams in the organization include linking to other teams and management and achieving empowerment. Training and development are particular problems in the area of developing team and management capabilities. Finally, aligning the context (which in our language can be defined as creating convergence) revolves around problems in information sharing, performance management, communication, and decision making. Because of its direct salience to the process of convergence, we concentrate here on Mohrman et al.’s (1995) treatment of aligning the context. “The early stages of the transition to teams are generally fraught with inconsistencies between the new team logic and the traditional/hierarchical logic” (p. 338). We see this as directly addressing the interpenetration of cultural structures. Teams are constantly running into barriers or experiencing tension with the old organization. Some examples: a team member may encounter a traditional manager in a customer organization who is unwilling to make decisions with someone who is not a manager [control vs. shared responsibility; hierarchy vs. unity; authority vs. experience]. Teams may not have timely or adequate access to the performance measures they need to be self-improving [measurable productivity vs. mission/purpose/excellence]. The communication system may be designed to systematically get information only as far as the secondlevel managers, so teams have to rely on those managers to informally share key information [control vs. shared responsibility; hierarchy vs. unity; authority vs. experience]. The reward system may reward the second-level managers and above for the performance of the business units but not the team members who are being asked to assume responsibility for achieving requisite integration for business-unit effectiveness [control vs. shared responsibility; hierarchy vs. unity; measurable productivity vs. mission/purpose/excellence]. (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 338, bracketed italicized comments are ours)

Mohrman et al. (1995) close their book with a chapter entitled “Facing the Challenges Ahead.” They point out that the large-scale transition of creating team-based organizations from traditional hierarchies has just begun. “Currently, organizations are in the midst of this long and difficult transi-

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

265

tion, and no organization has emerged on the other side” (p. 349). This would explain why, as we illustrate in chapter 6, so many organizations implementing team-based design fit the profile of the divergent organization. “As organizations implement team-based designs, their very nature changes. New organizational forms develop, new systems need to be implemented, and difficult issues emerge” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 349). Mohrman et al. (1995) identify several characteristics of the team-based organization with implications for organizational structure and behavior, including changes in the notion of organizational boundaries, identifying the team-based organization as a learning organization, coordination of formal and informal aspects, systems development efforts, challenges to individual capabilities, and managers as designers. Of all of these features, their treatment of the coordination between formal and informal aspects speaks most directly to our interest in convergence. “The team-based organization demands high levels of formalization and informal cooperation simultaneously” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 352). Although the foundation for the team-based organization relies upon the formalization of structures and processes, the organization depends on voluntary processes of informal cooperation. “The relationship between formal and informal processes is reciprocal” (p. 352). They recommend using feedback from work teams to formalize connections that naturally arise informally. In this way, “informal connections shape what needs to be formalized” (p. 352), just as formalized relationships often shape informal connections. Most important to us here is the philosophical approach underlying these observations. The formal and the informal are not implicitly defined as divergent opposites, but as mutually constitutive. Mohrman et al.’s (1995) recommendations suggest that such mutually constitutive functions may be strategically utilized for successful implementation of teambased designs. It is precisely this kind of thinking that we espouse. We seek to define as mutually constitutive rules/resources that have traditionally been treated as oppositional. Note the similarity to Warfield-Coppock (1994) notion of working collectives, as described in chapter 3. Mohrman et al. (1995) specify several fundamental changes required for successful implementation of the team-based organization. The first of these fundamental changes is the requirement to change the definition of the job. In the traditional, hierarchical organization, individuals were placed in a position and were responsible for performing duties listed in the position’s job description. In the team-based organization, job descriptions may not exist. Instead a person’s job may be applying a set of competencies to a variety of problems in a changing set of teams. Doing one’s job means working with others across functions across systemic levels and being able to make trade-offs that consider the divergent perspectives at all levels. It means negotiating pri-

266

CHAPTER 7

orities with those who have some stake in one’s performance. Dealing with ambiguity, uncertainty, and continual change is not an exception but is a routine part of one’s job; there is no steady state. (pp. 355–356)

Several sets of rules/resources traditionally viewed as oppositional (Tables 1.1 and 3.2) can be discussed here as mutually constitutive. The most obvious is task and relational orientations: The nature of the tasks encompassed by one’s job are defined by relationships with others; one’s organizational relationships are also defined by the tasks being accomplished at any given time. Another is individualism and collectivism: An individual’s job responsibilities are shaped by collectivities across organizational functions and levels; the collectivities with whom one interacts are determined by one’s current individual job responsibilities. Yet another set of rules/resources that becomes mutually constitutive is self-reliance/interdependence: An individual must, in self-reliant fashion, have “the cognitive abilities to deal with the complexity that must be managed [and the] adaptability to cope with constant change” (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 356) so that she or he can engage interdependently with others; conversely, interdependence across functions and levels builds self-reliance to make those “trade-offs” that bridge divergent perspectives. Another fundamental change discussed by Mohrman et al. (1995) is that of working relationships: In the hierarchical organization, the manager mediated the relationships among co-workers. In the team-based organization, people work directly with those with whom they are interdependent. Rather than depending upon a job description and direction from the manager, people work jointly with coworkers to determine what they do. Co-workers are likely to come from different functions and backgrounds and thus are likely to have different values, expectations, and priorities. Because personal success is dependent upon collective success, the fate of an individual is tied to co-workers who may not share the same assumptions about how things should be done. (p. 356)

Here, several sets of rules/resources can be seen as mutually constitutive. Most obviously, task/relational orientations, individualism/collectivism, and self-reliance/interdependence are again seen as mutually dependent, much as described previously. In addition, control/shared responsibility, hierarchy/ unity, authority/experience; and dichotomous/continuous logic also become convergent: Shared responsibility achieves control over work processes, and team members share responsibility because they have direct control in their joint work with others; team unity sustains the new lateral hierarchy which created it; team members’ experience creates their authority which, in turn, enhances their experience; the continuous logic of joint determination of job function allows co-workers to divide labor (categorization being a dichoto-

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

267

mous function) and the resultant division (dichotomization) of tasks reinforces joint (continuous/cyclical) collaboration on job function. Another fundamental change identified by Mohrman et al. (1995) is that of the basic role/function of management: In the hierarchical organization, managers provided direction and supervised performance of individuals who reported to them. Authority went hand-inhand with rank. In the team-based organization, multiple reporting relationships are common, managers may belong to management teams that are collectively responsible for setting direction, nonmanagers may belong to integrating teams that are collectively responsible for integrating the work of their peers, managers may serve on teams as equal members with nonmanagers, and nonmanagers may be assigned to team leadership roles. In the team-based organization, scope of authority is separate from hierarchical rank. (p. 357)

Clearly, we see convergence between hierarchy and unity, lateral hierarchy creating unity and unity reproducing lateral hierarchy; authority and experience, authority being both vested in and promoting experience-based skills; control and shared responsibility; control being achieved through and supporting sharing responsibility; individualism and collectivism, individual leadership roles supporting collective responsibility that enhances individual performance (and vice versa); dichotomous and continuous logics, where “management” is defined by organizational function rather than persondefined position and this definition creates fluid relationships that determine who might be the “head” (dichotomized from the group) at any given moment (this also reflects the convergence of dualism and holism, with shifting of the headship role from person to person); self-reliance and interdependence, where any individual can be expected to step up to the plate and lead, creating deeply interdependent relationships, that in turn allow the leadership role to be rotated, creating self-reliance for every member to be able to lead; linearity and circularity; where chains of authority are fluid but still existing. Performance requirements are yet another area of fundamental change discussed by Mohrman et al. (1995) that create cognitively challenging sites for constant negotiation: In the traditional, hierarchical organization, individuals were concerned with their own performance. If they met their objectives, they succeeded (even if business objectives were not met). In the team-based organization, people are responsible for collective performance at multiple systemic levels. Individuals are part of teams that need to be concerned with the business unit’s performance, the team’s performance, and their own performance. Optimizing performance at any one level may hurt performance at another level. The trade-

268

CHAPTER 7

offs may not be obvious, however; the link between behavior and performance at one level may be uncertain and at multiple levels indeterminate. (p. 357)

This one area is rich with illustrations of convergence between potentially divergent cultural rules/resources. The following are most obvious: individualism/collectivism, as individual performance and collective performance are mutually defined; self-reliance/interdependence, where individuals must link their own performance with that of others; productivity/mission-purposeexcellence, where goals at the individual, business-unit, and organizational levels are mutually defined; dichotomous/continuous logics, where such goals exist separately but are intertwined and interdependent; hierarchy/unity, where said goals are unified by a lateral nested hierarchy which is in turn sustained by such unity; competition/common good, where the overarching common good creates interunit competition that must be constantly negotiated, and such negotiation supports the common good; information efficiency/communalism, as different organizational units achieve communalism through efficient effective communication of information which is in turn enhanced by such communalism; objectivity/intersubjectivity, where a reciprocal relationship exists between individuals linking their activities to the external requirements of performance goals and groups negotiating their understanding of the meaning of those requirements; dualism/holism, where different levels of goals are differentiated by examination of their holistic relationships and the holism understood through the differentiation (dualism); linearity/circularity, where the planning of individuals and groups for goal-attainment is an iterative process; reductionism/inductivism, where the immediate bottom line and the big picture are mutually defining. Changes in the basis of accountability are closely related to the previously described areas of change and provide a significant challenge to bureaucratic logic: In the traditional organization, people were held accountable for individual performance. In the team-based organization, accountability is broadened: people are held accountable for collective results. These results can be at the level of the business unit or the team. Individuals are still held accountable, but it is in the context of achieving collective results. (Mohrman et al., 1995, p. 358)

The convergences described earlier under performance requirements operate similarly here. The final area of fundamental change discussed by Mohrman et al. (1995) is that of commitment:

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

269

In the traditional organization, employees were paid for doing their jobs and were not expected to do more. The team-based organization demands high commitment to both work and co-workers (Mohrman & Cohen, 1995). The performance demands and the requirements for integration in the team-based organization mean the people need to take the initiative to solve complex problems and work through difficult lateral transactions. . . . Because people must rely on one another and often must work very closely together in order to achieve collective goals, the team-based organization also requires high levels of commitment to co-workers. This commitment implies that relationships tap both personal and professional elements and that an emotional bond exists (Kahn, 1990). . . . [Also,] many work relationships are temporary; teams form and disband when their projects are concluded, and many projects are shortterm. In addition people may work on teams that are not co-located but whose interactions are computer-mediated. Many organizations even have “virtual teams”—groups of people who are linked electronically but are not formally constituted as teams. Finally, companies have redefined the employee contract. No longer can an employee expect a lifetime career with the same company. Years of downsizing have communicated to employees that companies are not committed to them. Thus, on the one hand, the team-based organization is calling for high levels of commitment to work and to co-workers. On the other hand, work relationships are temporary and mediated by computer, and employment stability no longer exists. (pp. 359–360)

The most obvious convergence here is that between task and relational orientations. Employees are expected to achieve tasks by working through highly committed personal relationships; likewise, these relationships are formulated for collective work on tasks. Humanism and objectification also converge: Short-term projects in low-proximity environments set a context for objectification that, in conjunction with the demands of collective performance, creates humanism in working relationships; such humanism in relationships between co-workers then supports and reinforces the objectification of employment instability (where “the company” no longer needs to provide a humanistic environment because that need is satisfied by the humanism that infiltrates and permeates the environment via coworker relationships). Furthermore, materialism and spirituality converge as these personally (spiritually) enriching coworker relationships spring from the materiality of the organization at the same time that these personally (spiritually) enriching relationships promote material organizational goals. Anecdotal Evidence for “Bending” the Remaining Dimension Through these rather lengthy reviews of Lawler (1992) and Mohrman et al. (1995), we have been able to illustrate the “bending” of all but one of our 20 continua. We did not find in either text reviewed any treatment of the rela-

270

CHAPTER 7

tionship between profit and commitment to community, probably due to their distinct emphasis on internal organizational processes. We can, however, anecdotally note convergence between these two sets of rules/resources. Many corporations in the private sector maintain a community-oriented foundation or other such community outreach structure, the operation of which significantly enhances the corporate interest. One such corporation that warrants mention is Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae is a publicly traded Fortune 100 corporation with annual profits in the $4.5 billion range. The mortgage company also operates the Fannie Mae Foundation (FMF). The FMF mission statement reads as follows: “The Fannie Mae Foundation transforms communities through innovative partnerships and initiatives that revitalize neighborhoods and create affordable homeownership and housing opportunities across America” (Fannie Mae Foundation, 1999). The FMF funds educational outreach on financial security and homeownership (having distributed since 1993 more than 10 million copies of free educational guides in 9 languages); promotes and funds first-time home ownership among lower income families; and supports sustainable community development through partnerships, grants, fellowships, loans, research, bricks-and-mortar programs, and a variety of programs that increase the effectiveness of community development corporations and other nonprofits. The FMF also sponsors the WAVE (We Are Volunteer Employees) program, comprised of several elements: a volunteer matching service; an employee steering committee for group projects; a recognition/ award program; grants that match employees’ volunteer hours with dollars; release time for volunteer activities; team-building activities built around service; a PC donations program; a double matching gifts program; and a United Way Campaign (Fannie Mae Foundation, n.d.). The FMF is an exemplar of corporate community commitment, serving several million individuals and families in communities across the United States each year and concretely supporting volunteerism and community service among its employees. The FMF also more than pays for itself in both tangible and intangible economic terms for the corporation. The FMF operates independently with total assets in the $300 million range annually (Fannie Mae Foundation, 2001). The FMF mission enhances sustainable community development with a focus on neighborhoods and housing. Aside from the indirect economic benefits of the public relations functions served by FMF, Fannie Mae directly reaps the benefits of such community development. In short, every company in the mortgage industry profits materially when there are more homeowners successfully making payments on more mortgages. FMF’s top priority for 2000 was “sharing knowledge” in its efforts to disseminate information “through homebuying guides, research journals, and convenings of leaders in the fields and housing and community develop-

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

271

ment” (Fannie Mae Foundation, 2001, p. iii). Sharing knowledge and providing opportunity creates wealth and builds communities. These are things that positively impact Fannie Mae’s corporate bottom line. Still, financial benefit for the corporation does not diminish the tremendous public good accomplished by the Foundation. A company’s economic standing can both promote commitment to the community and be improved by it. For Fannie Mae and the FMF, healthy communities and profitable business are mutually constitutive. Summary Table 7.2 summarizes convergence between triangular and circular sets of rules/resources originally presented in Tables 1.1 and 3.2. As such, Table 7.2 provides a baseline from which to begin to build a conceptualization of the convergent organization. In this table, we summarize our illustrations of the ways in which the rules/resources previously conceptualized as polar opposites that create divergent organizations can be reconceptualized into symbiotic mutually constitutive modes of organizational function. THE FOUNDATION FOR A HUMANISTIC MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION: A BASELINE FOR THEORIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION To close, we shall revisit our baseline and emergent models and apply them to our concept of convergence so that we may create a heuristic general model. First, we review our understanding of divergence, conceptualize and model our concept of convergence, and apply it to the predominantly African-American organization. Next, we review our understanding of the interaction spiral and the emergent model of organizational problematics, applying our concept of convergence to these models as well. The result is a series of figures that humanistically model a heuristic, general process of organizational life in a convergent organization. Our hope is that such modeling allows a framework for theorizing research of organizational processes that problematizes organizational form as a culturally embedded phenomenon. Revisiting Divergence The divergent processes we observed in our data led to the development of our theory of the divergent organization. Organizational divergence, as conceptualized throughout this volume, is the result of the interpenetration of contradictory cultural structures. We conceptualize the traditional bureaucratic European-based cultural structure as triangular and the traditional

TABLE 7.2 Summary of Convergences between Triangular and Circular Rules/Resources: A Baseline for the Convergent Organization Rules/Resources Task/Relationship

Materialism/ Spirituality

Profit/Community

Control/ Shared Responsibility

Hierarchy/Unity

Authority/ Experience

Dichotomous/ Continuous

Convergence Seen in Organizational Practice The tasks encompassed by a job are defined by relationships with others; organizational relationships are defined by tasks. Employees achieve tasks through highly committed interpersonal relationships that are specifically formulated for collective work on tasks.M Material/physical features create and sustain a nonmaterial (spiritual) sense of egalitarianism facilitating teamwork that drives the creation of similar material structures.L Personally (spiritually) enriching co-worker relationships spring from the materiality of the organization at the same time that these relationships promote material organizational goals.M A company’s economic standing can both promote commitment to the community and be improved by it; healthy communities and profitable business are mutually constitutive.A Production employees’ control over new employee selection is inherently a sharing of responsibility that creates organizational control over appropriate applicant selection.L Shared responsibility achieves control over work processes, and team members share responsibility because they have direct control in their joint work with others.M Hierarchy becomes lateral rather than vertical.L,M Production employees’ control over hiring is embedded in a flattened hierarchy that creates a unity that reproduces the new hierarchy.L Hierarchy is defined laterally (by scope of decision-making authority), thus creating unity, which then reinforces the lateral hierarchy. By replacing the vertical feature of hierarchy with a nested design, hierarchy promotes unity and vice versa. Also, goals are unified by a lateral nested hierarchy which is in turn sustained by such unity.M Authority over hiring is given to employees with the best experience, and having that authority makes them more experienced. Authority is created by the team’s growing experience, made possible by self-authority.L Authority is vested in those with experience, which they have achieved through decision-making authority. Team members’ experience drives their authority over the design process; their authority, then, reflects the value of their experience.M Teams performing the same organizational function (product or service) are separated from one another (dichotomous logic) so that they may provide continuous customer service; this reinforces the segmentation of these teams.L In setting direction, the executive team remains separate in their task of formulating direction but that task is achieved through continuous process of communication. Joint determination of job function rests on continuous logic and allows co-workers to divide labor (a dichotomous function); this division of tasks reinforces the joint (continuous/cyclical) collaboration on job function.M (Continued)

272

TABLE 7.2 (Continued) Rules/Resources

Convergence Seen in Organizational Practice

Objectification/ Humanism

Pay structures are humanistic (person-based) and linked to learning; the link to learning objectifies (depersonalizes) the process by providing an observable measure, which in turn provides humanistic reward.L Short-term projects in low-proximity environments set a context for objectification that, in conjunction with the demands of collective performance, creates humanism in working relationships; such humanism in relationships between coworkers then supports and reinforces the objectification of employment instability (where “the company” no longer needs to provide humanistic environment because that need is satisfied by coworker relationships).M Productivity is enhanced by the participative mission that has been created by an emphasis on productivity. By linking team members directly to the entire business process, their productivity is directly driven by and drives the organizational mission.L Team objectives are directly tied to organizational mission (which is created participatively with the teams); performance rewards are based on achievement of objectives (productivity); goals at the individual, business-unit, and organizational levels are mutually defined.M Continuous logic and the mutually enhancing values of youth and age become apparent as (older) production employees interview, interact with, and ultimately hire (younger) job applicants; this creates a dichotomy between the older and younger (those doing new employee selection and those being selected), which is made continuous as they all co-create policies, procedures, and methods.L Individual performance and collective performance are mutually defined.L,M The hiring process is focused on choosing individuals likely to function well in a collectivistic environment. Pay structures increase with individual learning, providing reward that promotes the collective effort. Individuals on the team are solely responsible for their specialized purpose and thus contribute to the collectivity of the team, which is defined by this collection of individually based skills.L Individuals are held accountable for collective performance, and the collectivity depends on individual contributions. An individual’s job responsibilities are shaped by collectivities, and the collectivities with whom an individual interacts are determined by the individual’s current job responsibilities. Individual roles supporting collective responsibility that enhance individual performance (and vice versa).M The very term self-managed teams is a convergence of self-reliance and interdependence.L,M Team members are expected to work interdependently, which is only possible through the self-reliant skill-building of individuals; self-reliant individuals build those skills through the interdependent process.L

Productivity/ Mission

Youth/Age

Individualism/ Collectivism

Self-reliance/ Interdependence

(Continued)

273

TABLE 7.2 (Continued) Rules/Resources

Competition/ Common Good

Written/Spoken

Effic. Info./ Communalism Monosynchr./ Polysynchr.

Objectivity/ Intersubjectivity

Dualism/Holism

Convergence Seen in Organizational Practice Lateral authority enhances self-reliance, which in turn enhances interdependence; as team members learn to depend on each other, they become more self-reliant as they strive to contribute to the team effort. An individual must self-reliantly manage complexity and adapt to constant change so that s/he can engage interdependently; conversely, interdependence across functions and levels builds self-reliance to make those “trade-offs” that bridge divergent perspectives. Any individual is expected to step up to the plate and lead (which requires self-reliance), creating interdependence that enhances individual leadership skills as the leadership role is rotated.M Segmentation creates competition between teams performing same organizational function; such competition promotes the organizational common good, which reinforces the organizational structure that, in turn, creates interteam competition.L The overarching collective good creates inter-unit competition that must be constantly negotiated, and such negotiation supports the common good.M There is no traditional/bureaucratic focus on the written form of communication but rather a fluid recognition that clarity and regularity are most important features of communication, suggesting communication should beget communication in all forms and thus converging the written and spoken word.M Different organizational units achieve communalism through efficient effective communication which is in turn enhanced by such communalism.M Team-based control over the entire business process requires a monosynchronic time orientation to meet customer demands and remain competitive; however, because the team’s orientation to time is internally rather than externally controlled, polysynchronic timeliness is simultaneously required.L A reciprocal relationship exists between individuals linking their activities to the external requirements of performance goals and groups negotiating their understanding of the meaning of those requirements.M Employees work on products holistically, creating a dualistic segmentation of their group from others working on other products— even those with similar process; it is this dualistic separation that creates the holistic approach to products. We also see dualism and holism converge as product phases remain but become integrated more holistically.L Nesting goals are differentiated by examination of their holistic relationships, and the holism is understood through the differentiation.M (Continued)

274

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

275

TABLE 7.2 (Continued) Rules/Resources Linearity/ Circularity

Reductionism/ Inductivism

Convergence Seen in Organizational Practice The linear process of moving a product from start to finish is made possible by the circular process of self-management, within which the team plans and executes such production; successful production then reinforces the self-management. We also see convergence between linearity and circularity as the linear process of a product from conception to delivery becomes iteratively informed.L As each organizational unit at each level progresses in a linear process (set goals, plan strategy, implement strategy, etc.) and change occurs, there is continual circular iteration of re-definition and realignment of direction and goals across organizational levels. In addition, chains of authority are fluid but still existing.M Inductivism is emphasized in a holistic focus on particular products that reduces production to a focus on individual products produced by individual teams, which then reinforces the holistic inductive production process. Also, teams’ direct involvement in business process converges “the bottom-line” and “the big picture.”L Business direction is shared, owned, and understood, and team members understand how their activities relate to the broader business strategy. Here, reductionism and inductivism converge as “the bottom-line” and “the big picture” are mutually defining.M

LOur

analysis of Lawler (1992). analysis of Mohrman et al. (1995). AOur anecdotal analysis of Fannie Mae and the Fannie Mae Foundation. MOur

holistic African-based cultural structures as circular. Our observations of our data sets allowed us to identify 20 sets of rules/resources, or continuum-like dimensions, that differ (and thus diverge) between the circular African-American (human) cultural structure and the triangular EuropeanAmerican (organizational form) cultural structure. Divergence occurs as organizational members pull in opposite directions, polarizing the ends of these 20 continua and setting off a downward spiral (unresolved conflict, immobilization, erosion of the organizational system and human development). We also demonstrated (in chap. 6) that alternative democratic, participative organizational structures are circular as well, and that predominantly European and European-American organizations attempting to implement circular organizational forms without changes in the triangular human culture also experience the phenomenon of divergence, with its attendant downward spiral. Conceptualizing and Achieving Convergence. Our earlier analysis that “bends” the 20 continua demonstrates a reinterpretation of the ways in which these cultural structures interpenetrate, revealing that these two sets of rules and resources, previously conceived as oppositional, can be

276

CHAPTER 7

reconceptualized as mutually constitutive (summarized in Table 7.1). In the texts analyzed to accomplish this reconceptualization (Lawler, 1992; Mohrman et al., 1995), the authors also describe human interaction that reveals positive interaction cycles, representing an upward spiral that is the antithesis of the downward spiral identified in our data sets. Their descriptions of successful restructured companies demonstrate a positive interaction cycle consisting of the successful negotiation of competitive interests and difficult interactions, organizational and individual goal attainment, and organizational and individual development. The question becomes, then, how to achieve such explicit “bending” in practice. It is our contention that underlying cultural processes become divergent precisely because they are underlying; organizational members are unaware of the culturally embedded natures of organizational form and human interaction. Creating convergence depends on explicit understanding of the multiple cultural structures in operation, identification of divergent rules/resources, and reinterpretation of those rules/resources as mutually constitutive. It also depends on a restructuring of the organizational form to a lateral hierarchy to allow such convergence. Success depends on the commitment of organizational members across levels and units. In the absence of restructuring the organizational form, explicit conscious understanding of the culturally embedded processes (of both organizational form and human interaction) that lead to divergence can assist organizational members in understanding the origins and consequences of their behavior/interaction. With mutual conscious understanding of the cooperation of multiple cultural structures (value sets, rules/resources), organizational members can better negotiate their difficulties with one another. Although full convergence cannot be achieved without alteration of an organizational form embedded in a single culture, organizational members who inhabit such an organizational form can subvert the downward spiral through deep cultural understanding. In American society, multicultural by its very nature, restructuring a triangular organizational form into a circular organizational form does not achieve convergence. This is reflected in texts explicating current theories of organizational design (e.g., Lawler, 1992; Mohrman et al., 1995). Organizational forms such as those advocated by Lawler (1992) and Mohrman et al. (1995) are neither triangular nor circular, nor are they some overlaid amalgam of the two. Rather, these organizational designs appear, by our analysis, to be a convergence of triangularity and circularity. It is important to note that at the same time the organization is restructured to the new form, comprehensive training takes place to shift the human organizational culture (i.e., Galbraith et al., 1993; Lawler, 1986, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2001; Lawler et al., 1998; Mohrman et al., 1995; Mohrman et al., 1998). As such, both the organizational form and the human organizational culture are morphed into a

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

277

FIG. 7.1. Graphic depiction of the change in organizational form advocated by theorists of organizational restructuring.

new shape. The organizational form and human culture become compatible so that they interpenetrate smoothly; not only are these cultural structures compatible, they represent a converging of triangularity and circularity. Figure 7.1 graphically represents the change in organizational form advocated by Lawler (1992) and Mohrman et al. (1995). As depicted by Fig. 7.1, the traditional bureaucratic organizational form is lateralized (hierarchy) and broadened (scope of authority). Furthermore, those at the bottom of the previously existing hierarchy are given more responsibility, integrating them into the authority structure. The resultant organizational form resembles an oval, representing significant conscious shifts in the rules and resources embedded in organizational form that accomplish the explicit reconceptualization of circular and triangular structures, previously and implicitly conceptualized as oppositional, as mutually constitutive. Figure 7.2 graphically represents the corresponding change in organizational (human) culture advocated by Lawler (1992) and Mohrman et al. (1995). We have included in our depiction of this change in organizational culture the cognitive mechanism for invoking structure into system. Previously, we conceptualized task and relationship orientations as that cognitive mechanism. However, in this heuristic model, we must consider the specific cognitive mechanism as an empirical question, and so we include it in the model in its general form. As shown in Fig. 7.2, the human culture experiences lateralizing accountability and expanding capabilities. Employees become empowered. Like the convergent organizational form, the resultant human culture also resembles an oval, similarly representing significant explicit shifts in the human cultural structure that accomplish the explicit reinterpretation of circular and triangular rules and resources, previously and implicitly treated as oppositional, as mutually defining.

278

CHAPTER 7

FIG. 7.2. Graphic depiction of the change in organizational culture advocated by theorists of organizational restructuring.

Returning to our baseline model, we can now depict the convergent organization (Fig. 7.3). We now see that the convergent organization, as depicted in Fig. 7.3, is the interpenetration of an organizational form that converges triangularity and circularity with a human culture that converges triangularity and circularity. Such an organization is neither triangular nor circular but oval, again representing significant conscious shifts in both cultural structures that accomplish the explicit reconceptualization of circular and triangular rules and resources, previously and implicitly conceptualized as oppositional, as mutually constitutive. Applying Convergence to African-American Organizations. Figure 7.4 graphically represents a structural change that can be made in AfricanAmerican organizational (human) culture (as described earlier in this chapter), widening cultural understanding of organizational members to encompass a comprehension of the culturally embedded nature of organizational form and human interaction and creating a recognition of the multiple

FIG. 7.3. The interpenetration of multiple structures creating the convergent organization.

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONVERGENT ORGANIZATION

279

FIG. 7.4. Graphic depiction of the change in organizational culture that can be made in African-American organizational culture.

interpenetrations of triangular and circular rules and resources in their organizational lives—reinterpreting these heretofore oppositional forces as mutually constitutive. Again, for heuristic purposes, we express the cognitive mechanism for invoking structure into system in a general form. As explained previously, predominantly African-American organizations are culturally well-suited to nontraditional, nonbureaucratic organizational forms. Figure 7.3 can be thus applied to the African-American organization; this figure can be seen as a graphic depiction of the interpenetration of multiple convergent cultural structures that results in the convergent organization— regardless of the ethnic culture of organizational members—in humanistic rather than culturally based fashion. Revisiting the Interaction Spiral As stated previously, the authors of the texts analyzed to accomplish this reconceptualization of divergence to convergence (Lawler, 1992; Mohrman et al., 1995), report human interaction that reflects a positive interaction cycle consisting of the successful negotiation of competitive interests and difficult interactions, organizational and individual goal attainment, and organizational and individual development—illustrating a subversion of the downward spiral associated with divergence. In developing a heuristic model, we shall continue to express processes in general form. And so, Fig. 7.5 depicts the upward interaction spiral of the convergent organization: negotiation of difference, goal attainment, development. In particular, the general expression “negotiation of difference” has rich potential for research on diversity. Revisiting the Problematics Finally, we must revisit our conceptualization of problematics—those organizational processes that are particularly troublesome and salient to organizational members. Previously, we identified four such problematics (com-

280

CHAPTER 7

FIG. 7.5. The upward interaction spiral of the convergent organization.

munication/interpersonal dynamics, cultural identity/human development, leadership/management, and power/authority/control). In keeping with our heuristic modeling process, we must emphasize that the nature of the problematics may differ significantly for the convergent organization. The particular problematics we have identified spring from organizations with triangular form and must not be generalized to other organizational forms. It is quite possible, in fact, that problematics themselves may be embedded in the organization’s form. This is, of course, an empirical question—a fact that further underscores the need for our heuristic general modeling process to leave the nature of the problematics unspecified. However, we may safely assume that problematics will indeed exist. The organizing process is a complex and effortful coordination of human action, accomplished through interaction, that will inevitably challenge individuals and groups. To complete the translation of our baseline model into a heuristic model to organize theorizing and research, we now place the upward spiral of the convergent organization (Fig. 7.5) into the center of our initial emergent model, creating our full heuristic model of human communication in convergent organizational life. Figure 7.6 presents this full heuristic model. In this full heuristic model, the problematics are depicted as general and an unspecified number of multiple problematic sets are allowed. Individuals cognitively invoke cultural structure into system, wherein interaction generates problematics that impact one another to engender the upward spiral.

CONCLUSION Our deep treatment of culture and our conceptualization of organizational form as culturally embedded in our study of predominantly African-American organizations has allowed a rich view into the interplay of culture and organization—allowing, among other things, a conceptualization of demographically homogenous organizational memberships as culturally diverse. Our emergent model, depicting organizational life as constant simultaneous human interaction around a variety of communication problematics, allows a cultur-

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

281

FIG. 7.6. Human communication in convergent organizational life.

ally embedded intricately complex understanding of organizational communication processes. Our discovery of the phenomenon of divergence, and its attendant downward spiral, was made possible by our structurational approach that conceptualizes organizational form as a cultural structure that interpenetrates with the cultural structure of the social/ethnic/organizational culture of the organizational memberships in the organizations we studied. We were able to identify distinct features (rules and resources) of the cultural structure of the traditional bureaucratic organizational form, which we conceptualized as triangular. Likewise, we identified distinct features (rules and resources) of the cultural structure of the ethnic/social/organizational culture, specifically African-American culture, which we conceptualized as circular. These two sets of rules and resources were then conceptualized as 20 cultural continua. Through the development of our theory of divergence, we were able to conceptualize any organization with distinct cultural differences between its form and its human culture as divergent. As such, we defined the predominantly European or European-American organization attempting restructuring to circular organizational form as divergent. Examining the applied literature on team-based organizing, we illustrated divergences between all of our 20 continua, as well as a corresponding downward interaction spiral that mirrored ours. Furthermore, by examining the literature on successful organizational restructuring we illustrated a bending of those continua—a

282

CHAPTER 7

reconceptualization of opposition so that the polar ends of the continua ceased to diverge conceptually, but rather converge such that they are mutually constitutive. Finally, our study of the predominantly African-American organization with a deep cultural approach, our problematization of organizational form as culturally embedded, and our structurational theoretical framework has allowed us to design a set of heuristic, general, humanistic models of convergent organization. It is our hope that our conceptualization of divergence/convergence will enrich theory and research of organizational diversity processes and organizational restructuring processes. It is our hope that our heuristic model of human interaction in convergent organizational life will allow framing for research that provides rich description of a variety of organizational types, but especially that it encourages rich research of the African-American organization. Our deep treatment of culture, our problematization of organizational form as culturally embedded, and our reliance on a structurational framework has allowed our study of the predominantly African-American organization to provide deep insight far beyond this particular organizational type. It is our fervent hope that such culturally sensitive, humanistic work be taken up by others in the field of organizational communication, and that considerations of culture in the field shall evolve to the point where culture is consistently viewed as permeating the fabric of human—and thus organizational—life rather than merely existing as a set of variables or contexts.

Epilogue: Some Lessons Learned

The predominantly African-American organization is rich with organizational dynamics that are of considerable consequence in developing a deep understanding of cultural processes of organization. Fundamental to the predominantly African-American organization is the cultural value of humanism coupled with a collectivist ethos that gives significant credence to holism, common good, mission, purpose, and the human dignity of and respect for all organizational members. The cultural value of humanism sets the stage for understanding the importance of inclusivity for all organizational members. Humanism ushers in the need for constructing organizational processes whereby members are provided an opportunity to realize the importance of their opinions and contributions to the diverse, and often challenging, rigor of organizational life. Many contemporary organizational systems are restructuring, utilizing participatory management models that have not totally embraced the importance of valuing inclusiveness—therefore not hearing the voices of organizational members and missing much of how such inclusive involvement provides for more positive organizational and individual outcomes. Thus, the African-American organization profoundly teaches the lesson of the need for communication that informs, builds relationships, and pulls organizational members together to engage in a communication process that may be difficult but ultimately serves the organization to improve systemic functioning—a communication process that converges cultural differences. This cultural value of humanism can be adopted for organizations universally. It brings a sensitivity to the need for individual human expression 283

284

EPILOGUE

that achieves productivity, simultaneously understanding the importance of all organizational members to promote true empowerment. The relational mode that permeates African-American organizational functioning recognizes as equal the crucial importance of the individual and of the task to the organizational process. The circular dynamic of African-American organizational culture deeply embraces understanding the strength of the collective, which serves to enrich organizational processes. This innate circularity is further suffused with all of the 20 cultural rules/resources in Table 3.2 that permeate organizational life, and the vibrance they bring cannot be ignored. From these cultural values thus emerges an organizational value of high universal importance. The African-American organization teaches the global understanding that the organization functions in relationships between and among persons, and each person can contribute greatly to the end product. Although contemporary organizations ideologically embrace an inclusive philosophy, much more emphasis needs to be given as to how to consciously implement and give adequate attention to this overarching philosophy in daily practice and communication. Conflict is unavoidable in organizational life, but methods of resolution that give specific attention to humanistic interpersonal communication can create an organizational culture that is sustained by valuing humanity and human relationships. Embracing humanism and human relationships could contribute greatly to an organizational prototype for the 21st century. M.J.C. January 2002

Appendix: Gender of Interviewees by Interview Number

Organization 1 Int. # Gender

Int. # Gender

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

1 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Male Female Male Male Females & 1 Male Females Female Male Female Female Male Males Females Female Female & 1 Male Male Female Female Female Female Male Female Female Female & 1 Male

2 Females & 10 Females 5 Females 2 Females 1 Female 1 Female 1 Male 2 Females 3 Females 2 Females & 1 Female 3 Females & 2 Females 4 Males 3 Females & 3 Females 2 Females 3 Females 3 Females 3 Females & 1 Male 4 Males

1 Male

4 Males 2 Males

1 Male

1 Male

285

286

APPENDIX Organization 2 Int. # Gender

Int. # Gender

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 81 84 85

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 111 112 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122

Male Female Male Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Male Female Female Male Female Male Male Female Female Male Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Female Female Female Female Female

Female Female Male Female Female Female Female Male Male Female Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Male Female Female Female Female Female Male Female Female Female Male Male Female Female Female Male Female

References

Abrahams, R. (1970). Deep down in the jungle: Negro narrative folklore from the streets of Philadelphia. Chicago: Aldine. Adeleke, T. (1998). UnAfrican Americans: Nineteenth-century Black nationalists and the civilizing mission. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. Akbar, N. (1984a). Africentric social sciences for human liberation. Journal of Black Studies, 14, 395–414. Akbar, N. (1984b). Chains and images of psychological slavery. Jersey City, NJ: New Mind Productions. Akbar, N. (1985). Our destiny: Offers of the scientific revolution. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black children. Beverly Hills: Sage. Alderfer, C. P. (1990). Reflections on race relations and organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 493–495. Alderfer, C. P., & Thomas, D. A. (1988). The significance of race and ethnicity for understanding organizational behavior. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1–38). New York: Wiley. Allen, B. J. (1995). “Diversity” and organizational communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 143–155. Apter, D. E. (1965). The politics of modernization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley. Asante, M. K. (1980a). Afrocentricity: The theory of social change. Buffalo, NY: Amulefi. Asante, M. K. (1980b). International/intercultural relations. In M. K. Asante & A. S. Vandi (Eds.), Contemporary Black thought: Alternative analyses in social and behavioral science. Beverly Hills: Sage. Asante, M. K. (1987). The afrocentric idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Asante, M. K. (1988). Afrocentricity. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Asante, M. K. (1989). Folk poetry in the storytelling tradition. In L. Goss & M. E. Barnes (Eds.), Talk that talk (pp. 491–493). New York: Touchstone. Asante, M. K., & Davis, A. (1989). Encounters in the interracial workplace. In M. K. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 374–391). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

287

288

REFERENCES

Babrow, A. S. (1993). The advent of multiple-process theories of communication. Journal of Communication, 43, 110–118. Babrow, A. S. (1998). Colloquy: Developing multiple-process theories of communication. Human Communication Research, 25, 152–155. Baldwin, J. (1981). Notes on and Africentric theory of Black personality. Western Journal of Black Studies, 5, 172–179. Baldwin, J. (1986). African (Black) psychology: Issues and synthesis. Journal of Black Studies, 16, 235–249. Baldwin, J., & Hopkins, R. (1990). African-American and European-American cultural differences as assessed by the worldviews paradigm: An empirical analysis. Western Journal of Black Studies, 9, 38–52. Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437. Barker, J., & Cheney, G. F. (1994). The concept and practices of discipline in contemporary organizational life. Communication Monographs, 61, 19–43. Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bates, B. T. (1999). No more servants in the house. The Review of Black Political Economy, 26, 33–49. Belay, G. (1993). Toward a paradigm shift for international and intercultural communication: New research directions. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 16 (pp. 295–306). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1986). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row. Bennis, W. G. (1966). Changing organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Blake, R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf. Bohannan, P., & Curtain, P. (1988). Africa and Africans (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Bolt, C. (1984). Race and the Victorians. In C. C. Eldridge (Ed.), British imperialism in the nineteenth century. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Bond, M. A., & Pyle, J. L. (1998). Diversity dilemmas at work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7, 252–269. Bowman, P. J. (1977). Motivational dynamics and achievement of urban Black students: A situational relevant-path goal expectancy approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. Bowman, P. J. (1985). Black fathers and the provider role: Role strain, informal coping resources and life happiness. In A. W. Boykin (Ed.), Empirical research in Black psychology (pp. 9–19). Washington, DC: National Institute for Mental Health. Bowman, P. J. (1989a). Research perspectives on Black men: Role strain and adaptation across the adult life cycle. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Black adult development and aging (pp. 117–150). Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry. Bowman, P. J. (1989b). Marginality, ethnicity and family life quality: National study of Black husband-fathers. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Family ethnicity and diversity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bowman, P. J. (1991). Organizational psychology: African American perspectives. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Black psychology (3rd ed., pp. 509–531). Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry. Boykin, W. (1983). The academic performance of Afro-American children. In J. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives. San Francisco: Freeman. Boykin, W., & Toms, F. (1985). Black child socialization: A conceptual framework. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black children. Beverly Hills: Sage. Brown, J. A. (1984). Group work with low-income Black youths. Social World with Groups, 7, 111–124. Browning, L. D. (1992). Lists and stories as organizational communication. Communication Theory, 2, 281–302.

REFERENCES

289

Burke, K. (1965). Permanence and change. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1954) Carr, C. (1993). Diversity and performance: A shotgun marriage? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6, 115–126. Casmir, F. (1993). Third-culture building: A paradigm shift for international and intercultural communication. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 16 (pp. 407–428). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cheatham, H. E. (1990). Africentricity and career development of African Americans. Career Development Quarterly, 38, 334–346. Chen, G. M. (1989). Relationships of the dimensions of intercultural communication competence. Communication Quarterly, 37, 118–133. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Cheney, G. (1995). Democracy in the workplace: Theory and practice from the perspective of communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 167–200. Chung, W. V. L. (1997). Ethnicity and organizational diversity. New York: University Press of America. Cohn, D. (2000a, July 17). Biracial parents defy check boxes; couples say they don’t want their kids defined by color. Washington Post, p. B1. Cohn, D. (2000b, July 30). Census race question has limited impact; survey finds that about 2% of respondents report having mixed heritage. Washington Post, p. C8. Cole, J. (1970). Black culture: Negro, black, and nigger . . . Black Scholar, 1, 40–43. Collins, P. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman. Collins, S. M. (1993). Blacks on the bubble: The vulnerability of Black executives in White corporations. Sociological Quarterly, 34, 429–447. Cooren, F., & Taylor, J. R. (1997). Organization as an effect of mediation: Redefining of the link between organization and communication. Communication Theory, 7, 219–259. Covin, D. (1990). Afrocentricity O Movimento Negro Unificado. Journal of Black Studies, 21, 126–144. Cox, T. H. (1990). Problems with research by organizational scholars on issues of race and ethnicity. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26, 5–23. Cox, T. H. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler. Cox, T. H., & Beale, R. L. (1997). Developing competency to manage diversity. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences of cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 827–847. Cox, T. H., & Nkomo, S. (1986). Differential performance appraisal criteria: A field study of Black and White managers. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 101–119. Dandy, E. (1991). Black communications: Breaking down the barriers. Chicago: African American Images. Daniel, J., & Smitherman, G. (1976). How I got over: Communication dynamics in the Black community. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 26–39. Dass, P., & Parker, B. (1999). Strategies for managing human resource diversity: From resistance to learning. Academy of Management Executive, 13, 68–80. Day, R., & Day, J. V. (1977). A review of the current state of negotiated order theory: An appreciation and a critique. Sociological Quarterly, 18, 126–142. Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Deetz, S. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Delany, M. R. (1879). Principia of ethnology: Origins of races and color. Philadelphia.

290

REFERENCES

Dickens, Jr., F., & Dickens, J. B. (1991). The Black manager: Making it in the corporate world. New York: AMACOM. Difonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 47–62. Digh, P. (1998). Coming to terms with diversity. HR Magazine, 43, 117–120. Dobbs, M. (1996). Managing diversity: Lessons from the private sector. Public Personnel Management, 25, 351–367. Doka, K. (1996). Dealing with diversity: The coming challenge to American business. Business Horizons, 39, 67–71. Dorsey, L. K. (2000). Sister circles: An exploration of small group communication among African American women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Howard University, Washington, DC. Douglass, F. (1969). My bondage and my freedom. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1855) D’Souza, D. (1996). Beyond affirmative actions: The perils of managing diversity. Chief Executive, 19, 42–48. DuBois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of Black folk. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett. (Republished 1961) DuBois, W. E. B. (1946). The world and Africa. New York: International Publishers. Eales-White, R. (1995). Building your team. London: Kogen Page. Fannie Mae Foundation. (1999). Directory of home-buyer resources in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Washington, DC: Author. Fannie Mae Foundation. (2001). Fannie Mae Foundation 2000 annual report: Sharing knowledge. Washington, DC: Author. Fannie Mae Foundation. (n.d.). We are volunteer employees (WAVE) (brochure). Washington, DC: Author. Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management (C. Storrs, Trans.). London: Pitman. (Original work published 1925) Foeman, A. K., & Pressley, G. (1987). Ethnic culture and corporate culture: Using Black styles in organizations. Communication Quarterly, 35, 293–307. Franklin, J. H., & Schweninger, L. (1999). Runaway slaves: Rebels on the plantation. New York: Oxford University Press. Freeman, S. A., Littlejohn, S. W., & Pearce, W. B. (1992). Communication and moral conflict. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 311–329. Frey, L. (1995). Magical elixir or what the top tells the middle to do to the bottom?: The promises and paradoxes of facilitating work teams for promoting organizational change and development. In R. Cesaria & P. Shockley-Zalabak (Eds.), Organization means communication: Making the organizational communication concept relevant to practice (pp. 173–188). Rome, Italy: Servizio Italiano Pubblicazioni Internationali Sri. Galbraith, J. R., Lawler, E. E., & Associates. (1993). Organizing for the future: The new logic for managing complex organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gamson, Z., & Levin, H. (1985). Obstacles to the survival of democratic workplaces. In R. Jackall & H. Levin (Eds.), Worker cooperatives in America (pp. 219–244). Berkeley: University of California Press. Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (1994). Diverse teams at work: Capitalizing on the par of diversity. Chicago: Irwin. Gates, H. L. (1988). The signifying monkey. New York: Oxford University Press. Geist, P. (1995). Negotiating whose order? Communicating to negotiate identities and revise organizational structures. In A. M. Nicotera (Ed.), Conflict and organizations: Communicative processes (pp. 45–64). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Geist, P., & Hardesty, M. (1992). Negotiating the crisis: DRGs and transformation of hospitals. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

REFERENCES

291

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Golembiewski, R. T. (1995). Managing diversity in organizations. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Greaves, G. (1992). An African-centered rhetorical analysis of selected calypsos of political commentary of Trinidad from 1988 to 1991. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Howard University, Washington DC. Grenier, G. J. (1988). Inhuman relations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1987). The influence of ethnicity, gender, and dyadic composition on uncertainty reduction in initial interaction. Journal of Black Studies, 18, 191–214. Hale, J. (1982). Black children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/ Doubleday. Hall, J. M., & Stevens, P. E. (1997). African American men in nursing: A career opportunity that challenges structural racism. Journal of African American Men, 3, 21–32. Harris, H. E. (2000). The perceived influence of culture and ethnicity on the communicative dynamics of the U.N. Secretariat. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Howard University, Washington, DC. Harrison, P. (1972). The drama of Nommo. New York: Grove Press. Haskins, J., & Butts, H. (1973). Psychology of Black language. New York: Hippocrene Books. Haveman, H. A. (1992). Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 48–75. Hecht, M. L., Collier, M. J., & Ribeau, S. (1993). African American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., & Ribeau, S. A. (2003). African American communication: Exploring identity and culture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hecht, M. L., & Ribeau, S. (1984). Ethnic communication: A comparative analysis of satisfying communication. International Journal of Intercultral Relations, 8, 135–151. Hecht, M. L., Ribeau S., & Alberts, J. K. (1989). An Afro-American perspective on interethnic communication. Communication Monographs, 56, 385–410. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Holt, G. (1972). Stylin’ outta the Black pulpit. In T. Kochman (Ed.), Rappin’ and stylin’ out (pp. 189–204). University of Illinois Press. Hostager, T. J. (1995). Diverse selves, identities, and lenses: Steps to managing diversity as a cognitive resource in organizations. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 661–676. Hunter, D. L. (1999). A model for educating African American males. Journal of African American Men, 4, 3–19.c Huspek, M. (1994). Critical and nonfoundational analyses: Are they contradictory or complementary? In b. Kova…iƒ (Ed.), New approaches to organizational communication (pp. 191–210). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 679–740). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Jackson, R. L. (1995). Toward an Afrocentric methodology for the critical assessment of rhetoric. In L. Niles (Ed.), African American rhetoric: A reader (pp. 148–157). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Jackson, M. H., Deetz, S., McPherson, J., & Grim, A. (2000, November). Cultural change in an IT organization serving an institution of higher education: Initial observations and considerations. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA. Jaeger, M. E., Anthony, S., & Rosnow, R. L. (1980). Who hears what from whom and with what effect: A study of rumor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 473–478. Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Dallas: Houghton Mifflin.

292

REFERENCES

Jenkins, A. H. (1982). The psychology of the Afro-American: A humanistic approach. New York: Pergamon. Johnson, J. W. (1971). Africa at the peace table and the descendants of Africans in American democracy. In A. Hill & M. Kilson (Eds.), Apropos of Africa (pp. 384–392). New York: Anchor Books. Jones, E. W. (1973). What it’s like to be a Black manager. Harvard Business Review, 51, 108–116. Jones, E. W. (1986). Black managers: The dream deferred. Harvard Business Review, 64, 84–93. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. Kanter, R. (1983). The changemasters: Innovation and entrepreneurship in the American corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster. Khapoya, V. B. (1998). The African experience: An introduction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Khatib, S., Akbar, N., McGee, D., & Nobles, W. (1979). Voodoo or ICU: An introduction to African psychology. In W. D. Smith, K. H. Burlew, M. H. Mosley, & W. M. Whitney (Eds.), Reflections on Black psychology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. Kirby, E. L., & Harter, L. M. (2001). Discourses of diversity and the quality of work life: The character and costs of the managerial metaphor. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 121–127. Kochman, T. (1972). Rappin’ and stylin’ out: Communication in urban Black America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kochman, T. (1981). Black and White styles in conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. D. (1994). The effects of race an ethnicity on perceptions of human resource policies and climate regarding diversity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8, 319–334. Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 56–65. LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1976). Racial differences in gaze behavior during conversations: Two systematic observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 547–552. Lawler, E. E. (1986). High-involvement management: Participative strategies for improving organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lawler, E. E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lawler, E. E. (1996). From the ground up: Six principles for building the new logic corporation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lawler, E. E. (2000). Rewarding excellence: Pay strategies for the new economy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lawler, E. E. (2001). Organizing for high-performance: Employee involvement, TQM, reengineering, and knowledge management in the Fortune 1000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. (1998). Strategies for high-performance organizations—the CEO report: Employee involvement, TQM, and reengineering programs in Fortune 1000 corporations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1986). The networking book: People connecting with people. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Littlejohn, S. W. (1995). Moral conflict in organizations. In A. M. Nicotera (Ed.), Conflict and organizations: Communicative processes (pp. 101–125). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Lomotey, K. (1993). African-American principals. Urban Education, 27, 395–412. Lowin, A. (1968). Participative decision-making: A model, literature critique, and prescription for research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 68–106.

REFERENCES

293

Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Maines, D. R. (1979). Mesostructure and social process. Contemporary Sociology, 8, 525–527. Maines, D. R. (1982). In search of mesostructure: Studies in the negotiated order. Urban Life, 11, 267–279. Maines, D. R., & Charlton, J. C. (1985). The negotiated order approach to the analysis of social organization. In H. A. Faberman & R. S. Perinbanayagan (Eds.), Foundations of interpretive sociology: Original essays in symbolic interaction. Studies in symbolic interaction, supplement 1 (pp. 271–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Marshall, J. (1993). Viewing organizational communication from a feminist perspective. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 16 (pp. 122–143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Martin, J. N., Hecht, M. L., & Larkey, L. K. (1994). Conversational improvement strategies for interethnic communication: African American and European American perspectives. Communication Monographs, 61, 236–255. Mbiti, J. (1970). African religions and philosophy. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. McCreary, M. L., & Wright, R. C. (1997). The talented ten: Supporting African-American male college students. Journal of African American Men, 3, 45–68. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. McPhail, M. L. (1998). From complicity to coherence: Rereading the rhetoric of Afrocentricity. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 114–140. McPherson, J. (2001, May). Logics of participation: Acknowledge-intensive bureaucracy attempts cultural change. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC. Meyer, G. D. (1970). Participative decision-making: An analysis and review. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Moghaddam, F. M. (1993). Managing cultural diversity: North American experiences and suggestions. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 727–741. Mohrman, S. A., & Cohen, S. G. (1995). When people get out of the box: New relationships, new systems. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work (pp. 365–410). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mohrman, S. A., Galbraith, J. R., Lawler, E. E., & Associates. (1998). Tomorrow’s organization: Crafting winning capabilities in a dynamic world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Muller, H., & Haase, B. (1994). Managing diversity in health services organizations. Hospital and Health Services Administration, 39, 415. Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology, and domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1991). Power and discourse in organizational studies: Absence and the dialectic of control. Discourse and Society, 2, 313–332. Myers, L. J. (1998). The deep structure of culture: Relevance of traditional African culture in contemporary life. In J. D. Hamlet (Ed.), Afrocentric visions: Studies in culture and communication (pp. 3–14). Thousand Oaks: Sage. (Originally published in 1987, Journal of Black Studies, 18, 72–85) Nichols, E. J. (1976, 1987). The philosophical aspects of cultural difference. Public lecture. Washington, DC: Nichols & Associates. Niles, L. A. (1995). Rhetorical characteristics of traditional Black preaching. In L. A. Niles (Ed.), African American rhetoric: A reader (pp. 79–86). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. [Reprinted from Niles, L. A. (1984). Rhetorical characteristics of traditional black preaching. Journal of Black Studies, 15, 41–52.] Nkomo, S. M. (1992). The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting “race in organizations.” Academy of Management Journal, 17, 487–513.

294

REFERENCES

Nkomo, S. M., & Cox, T. (1989). Factors affecting the upward mobility of Black managers in private sector organizations. The Review of Black Political Economy, 17, 39–57. Nobles, W. (1978). African consciousness and liberation struggles: Implications for the development and construction of scientific paradigms. Unpublished manuscript. Nobles, W. (1980). African philosophy: Foundations for Black psychology. In R. Jones (Ed.), Black psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. O’Connor, E. (1993). Paradoxes of participation: A textual analysis of case studies documenting employee involvement efforts. Unpublished manuscript. Ogunleye, T. (1997). African American folklore: Its role in reconstructing African American history. Journal of Black Studies, 27, 433–455. Orbe, M. (1994). “Remember, it’s always Whites’ ball”: Descriptions of African American male communication. Communication Quarterly, 42, 287–300. Orbe, M. (1995). African American communication research: Toward a deeper understanding of interethnic communication. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 61–78. Orbe, M. (1998a). An outsider within perspective to organizational communication: Explicating communicative practices of co-cultural group members. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 230–279. Orbe, M. (1998b). Constructing co-cultural theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pacanowsky, M., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1982). Communication and organizational cultures. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 115–130. Pacanowsky, M., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50, 126–147. Parker, G. M. (1990). Team players and teamwork: The new competitive business strategy. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Philipsen, G. (1987). The prospect for cultural communication. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 245–254). New York: Academic Press. Phillips, L. C. (1983). A comparative study of two approaches for analyzing Black discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Howard University, Washington, DC. Poole, M. S., & McPhee, R. D. (1983). A structurational analysis of organizational climate. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 195–219). Beverly Hills: Sage. Poole, M. S., McPhee, R. D., & Seibold, D. R. (1982). A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision-making: Social decision schemes versus valence distributions. Communication Monographs, 49, 1–19. Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74–102. Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1986). A structurational approach to theory-building in group decision-making research. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 237–264). Beverly Hills: Sage. Rainwater, L. (1967). Crucible of identity: The Negro lower-class family. In T. Parsons & D. Clark (Eds.), The Negro American (pp. 160–204). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rayner, S. R. (1993). Recreating the workplace: The pathway to high performance work systems. Essex Junction, VT: Oliver Wright. Rees, F. (1991). How to lead work teams: Facilitation skills. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Rees, F. (1997). Teamwork from start to finish: 10 steps to results. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Robbins, H., & Finley, M. (2000). The new why teams don’t work: What goes wrong and how to make it right. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rose, L. F. R. (1982/1983). Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of Black culture and personality. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 13, 320–338. Rosnow, R. L., Esposito, J. L., & Gibney, L. (1988). Factors influencing rumor spreading: Replication and extension. Language and Communication, 8, 29–42.

REFERENCES

295

Schiele, J. H. (1990). Organizational theory from an Afrocentric perspective. Journal of Black Studies, 21, 145–161. Schiele, J. (1991). Afrocentricity for all. Black Issues in Higher Education, 8, 27. Schiele, J. (1994). Afrocentricity: Implications for higher education. Journal of Black Studies, 25, 150–169. Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (1986). Communication and influence in group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 133–155). Beverly Hills: Sage. Seidel, G. (1981). Cross-cultural training procedures: Their theoretical framework and evaluation. In S. Bochner (Ed.), The mediating person: Bridge between cultures (pp. 184–213). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Shaw, L. L. (1995). Orature: A new perspective in the study of human communication. In L. A. Niles (Ed.), African American rhetoric: A reader (pp. 117–121). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Sherriton, J., & Stern, J. L. (1997). Corporate culture/team culture: Removing the hidden barriers to team success. New York: AMACOM. Shuter, R. (1993). On third-culture building. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 16 (pp. 429–436). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Singelis, T. M., & Brown, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21, 354–389. Smith, A. (1972). Language, communication, and rhetoric in Black America. New York: Harper & Row. Smitherman, G. (1986). Talkin’ and testifyin’. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. (Originally published in 1977) Spraggins, Jr., J. D. (1999). African American masculinity: Power and expression. Journal of African American Men, 4, 45–72. Starosta, W. J., & Olorunnisola, A. A. (1995, April). A meta-model for third culture development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Pittsburgh, PA. Stephens, R. J. (1998). Rappin’ and stylin’ out in the USA: Images of rap artists as contemporary tricksters and griots. Challenge: A Journal of Research on African American Men, 9, 25–56. Stohl, C. (1995). Paradoxes of participation. In R. Cesaria & P. Shockley-Zalabak (Eds.), Organization means communication: Making the organizational communication concept relevant to practice (pp. 199–215). Rome, Italy: Servizio Italiano Pubblicazioni Internationali Sri. Stohl, C. (1997). Organizational communication: Connectedness in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 349–407. Stohl, C., & Sotirin, P. (1989). Absence as workplace control: A critical inquiry. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 13 (pp. 59–68). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, processes, context, and social order. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Ehrlich, D., & Sabshin, M. (1963). The hospital and its negotiated order. In E. Friedson (Ed.), The hospital in modern society (pp. 147–168). New York: Free Press. Taylor, F. W. (1911). Scientific management. New York: Harper. Taylor, J. R., Cooren, F., Giroux, N., & Robichaud, D. (1996). The communicational basis of organization: Between the conversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6, 1–39. Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thomas, D. A. (1989). Mentoring and irrationality: The role of racial taboos. Human Resource Management, 28, 279–290.

296

REFERENCES

Thomas, D. A. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relations (mentoring and sponsorship): An intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 479–492. Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 160–194. Thomas, R. (1999). Diversity management. Executive Excellence, 16, 8. Thomas, R., & Woodruff, M. (1999). Building a house for diversity: How a fable about a giraffe and an elephant offers new strategies for today’s workforce. New York: American Management Association. Toop, D. (1991). Rap attack 2: African rap to global hip hop. London: Serpent’s Tail. Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–1020. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399. Uchendu, V. C. (1965). The Igbo of Southeast Nigeria. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264. Vroom, V. H. (1970). Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Walker, C. J., & Beckerle, C. A. (1987). The effect of anxiety on rumor transmission. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 353–360. Warfield-Coppock, N. (1994). Afrocentric organizational development. In Progressive Life Center (Eds.), National HIV/STD technical assistance project: Training project for community-based organizations, training manual (pp. 16–38). Washington DC: Association of Black Psychologists. Warfield-Coppock, N. (1995). Toward a theory of Afrocentric organizations. Journal of Black Psychology, 21, 30–48. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1922) Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society (Vols. 1–2) (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1968) Wegner, J. (1994). The trouble with multiculturalism. Soundings, 77, 409–427. Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. New York: Random House. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: Random House. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381. Wharton, A. S. (1992). The social construction of gender and race in organizations: A social identity and group mobilization perspective. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 10, 55–84. White, J. L., & Parham, T. A. (1990). The psychology of Blacks: An African-American perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. White, R. K., & Lippitt, R. (1960). Autocracy and democracy. New York: Harper Brothers. Williams, R. L. (1981). The collective Black mind: An Afrocentric theory of Black personality. St. Louis: Williams & Associates. Wilson, P. E. (1996). The rhythm of rhetoric: Jesse Jackson at the 1988 Democratic National Convention. Southern Communication Journal, 61, 252–263. Winters, C. A. (1998). The Afrocentric historical and linguistic methods. Western Journal of Black Studies, 22, 73–83.

REFERENCES

297

Wright, R., & Hailu, H. F. (1988/1989). Conceptualizing language as ideology. The Howard Journal of Communications, 1, 174–186. Wyne, M. D., White, K. P., & Coop, R. H. (1974). The Black self. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Young, V. (1974). A black American socialization pattern. American Ethnologist, 1, 405–413. Yum, J. O. (1989, November). Communication sensitivity and empathy in culturally diverse organizations. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Zahan, D. (1979). The religion, spirituality, and thought of traditional Africa (K. E. Martin & L. M. Martin, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Author Index

Abrahams, R., 65, 287 Adeleke, T., 147, 287 Akbar, N., 78, 85, 86, 87, 96, 112, 147, 148, 287, 292 Alberts, J. K., 13, 70, 291 Alderfer, C. P., 13, 70, 182, 287 Allen, B. J., 3, 25, 287 Anthony, S., 131,291 Apter, D. E., 110,287 Argyris, C, 209, 235, 287 Asante, M. K., 13, 62, 70, 84, 87, 89, 92,95,96, 108, 179,247,287 B

Babrow,A. S., 33, 288 Baldwin, J., 85, 96, 288 Barker, J. R., 200, 209, 223, 224, 225, 240, 288 Barnard, C, 102,288 Bates, B.T., 182,288 Beale, R. L., 19, 289 Beavin, J., 213, 296 Beckerle, C. A., 131,296 Belay, G., 242, 288 Bellah, R. N., 227, 88 Bennis, W. G., 209, 288 Blake, R., 235, 288 Bohannan, P., 112,288 Bolt, C , 147, 288 Bond, M. A., 19, 288 Bordia,P., 131,290 Bowman, P. J., 74, 182, 183, 184, 288 Boykin, W., 52, 96, 183, 184, 288 Brown, J. A., 197, 288 Brown, W. J., 25, 295 Browning, L. D., 1,4, 5, 8, 33,63, 288 Bucher, R., 244, 295 Burke, K., 214, 289Butts, H., 58, 291

Carr, C, 19, 289 Casmir, R, 242, 289 Charlton, J. C, 244, 293 Cheatham, H. E., 96, 105, 106, 289 Chen, G. M., 2, 25, 242, 243, 289 Cheney, G., 209, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 220, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 288, 289, 295 Chung, W. V. L., 7, 289 Cohen, S. G., 247, 248, 249, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 275, 276, 277, 279, 293 Cohn, D., 22, 23, 24, 289 Cole, J., 183, 289 Collier, M. J., 13, 25, 47, 52, 53, 55, 56,70,82,85,87,89,173,291 Collins, P., 21,289 Collins, S. ML, 182, 289 Coop, R. H., 53, 297 Cooren, E, 1,5,8,27, 33,48, 289, 295 Covin, D., 87, 289 Cox, T. H., 7, 13, 16, 17, 19,70, 289, 294 Curtain, P., 112,288 D

D'Souza, D., 19, 290 Dandy, E., 57, 64, 65, 289 Daniel, J., 13,70,289 Dass, P., 19, 289 Davis, A., 13,70,287 Day, J. V., 244, 289 Day, R., 244, 289 Deetz, S., 200, 210, 238, 244, 289, 291 Delany, M. R., 107, 289 Dickens, E, 185, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 200, 289 Dickens, J. B., 185, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 200, 289

299

300

AUTHOR INDEX

Difonzo, N., 131,290 Digh, P., 19, 290 Dobbs, M., 19, 290 Doka, K., 19, 290 Dorsey, L. K., 60, 290 Douglass, F., 152, 290 DuBois, W. E. B., 107, 184, 290

Eales-White, R., 234, 290 Ehrlich, D., 244, 295 Esposito, J. L., 131,294

Fannie Mae Foundation, 270, 271, 290 Fayol, H., 13, 102, 103, 290 Finley, M, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232,294 Foeman, A. K., 13, 70, 290 Ford, J. K., 13, 70, 292 Franklin, J. H., 151, 152,290 Freeman, S. A., 118,290 Frey, L., 209, 211,239, 290

Galbraith, J. R., 247, 256, 276, 290, 293 Gamson, Z., 209, 290 Gardenswartz, L., 236, 290 Gates, H. L., 65, 290 Geist, P., 244, 245, 290 Gibney, L., 131,294 Giddens, A., 3, 9, 10, 12, 15, 27, 69, 290 Giroux, N., 1, 5, 8, 27, 33, 48, 295 Golembiewski, R. T., 243, 291 Greaves, G., 61,291 Grenier, G. J., 240, 291 Grim, A., 210, 238, 291 Gudykunst, W. B., 13, 70, 291

Hardesty, M., 244, 290 Harris, H. E., 24, 291 Harrison, P., 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 291 Harter, L. M., 19, 20, 243, 244, 292 Haskins, J., 57, 291 Haveman, H. A., 206, 291 Hecht, M. L., 13, 25, 47, 52, 53, 55, 56, 70, 82, 85, 87, 89, 173, 291, 293 Hofstede, G., 52, 291 Holt, G., 62, 291 Hopkins, R., 85, 288 Hostager, T. J., 19,291 Hui.C. H., 52,296 Hunter, D. L., 198, 199, 200, 291 Huspek, M, 200, 291 J Jablin, F. M., 189, 291 Jackson, D., 213, 296 Jackson, M. H., 210, 238, 291 Jackson, R.L., 61,62, 291 Jaeger, M.E., 131,291 Janis, I., 225, 291 Jenkins, A. H., 13,56,70,291 Johnson, J. W., 107, 292 Jones, E. W., 13, 70, 292 K Kahn, W. A., 269, 292 Kanter, R., 211,213, 292 Khapoya, V. B., 109, 110, 111, 112, 113,114,147,292 Khatib, S., 96, 292 Kirby, E. L., 19, 20, 243, 244, 292 Kochman, T., 13, 65, 70, 292 Kossek, E. E., 13, 70, 292 Kraiger, K., 13, 70, 292

H Haase, B., 19, 293 Hailu, H. E, 57, 58, 297 Hale, J., 96, 291 Hall, E. T., 14,88,291 Hall, J. M., 182,291 Hammer, M. R., 13, 70, 291

LaFrance, M., 13,70,292 Larkey, L. K., 13, 70, 293 Lawler, E. E., 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 269, 275, 276, 277, 279, 290, 292, 293 Ledford, G. E., 247, 256, 276, 292 Levin, H., 209, 290

301

AUTHOR INDEX Lewin, K., 235, 292 Likert, R.,235, 292 Lipnack, J., 210, 292 Lippitt, R., 209, 296 Littlejohn, S. W., 118, 290, 292 Lobel.S. A., 13,70,289 Lomotey, K., 199, 200, 292 Lowin, A., 209, 292 Lyotard, J. F., 5, 293

O

O'Connor, E., 217, 294 O'Donnell-Trujillo, N., 1, 294 Ogunleye, T., 62, 294 Olorunnisola, A. A., 242, 295 Orbe, M., 13,21,70, 85, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 294

M Madsen, R., 227, 288 Maines, D. R., 244, 293 Marshall, J., 16, 293 Martin, J. N., 13, 70, 293 Mayo, C, 13, 70, 292 Mbiti.J., 85,96,293 McCreary, M. L., 197, 199, 200, 293 McCusker, C, 52, 296 McGee, D., 96, 292 McGregor, D., 97, 209, 235, 293 McLeod,P. L., 13,70,289 McPhail, M. L., 107, 108, 242, 293 McPhee, R. D., 3, 9, 10, 27, 294 McPherson, J., 210, 238, 291, 293 Meyer, G. D., 209, 293 Meyers, R. A., 3, 9, 27, 295 Moghaddam, F. M., 19, 293 Mohrman, A. M., 247, 248, 249, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 275, 276, 277, 279, 293 Mohrman, S. A., 247, 248, 249, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 275, 276, 277, 279, 292, 293 Mouton, J. S., 235, 288 MullerH., 19,293 Mumby, D. K., 200, 240, 293 Myers, L. J., 74, 75, 80, 90, 293 N

Nichols, E. J., 13, 55, 69, 70, 74, 80, 96, 293 Niles, L. A., 64, 293 Nkomo, S. M., 13, 70, 289, 293, 294 Nobles, W., 75, 96, 292, 294

Pacanowsky, M., 1, 294 Parham,T. A., 13,47, 70,296 Parker, B., 19,289 Parker, G. M., 235, 236, 294 Pearce,W. B., 118,290 Philipsen, G., 47, 294 Phillips, L. C, 64, 294 Poole, M. S., 3, 9, 10, 27, 294 Pressley, G., 13, 70, 290 Pyle, J. L., 19, 288 R Rainwater, L., 53, 294 Rayner, S. R., 232, 233, 294 Rees, F., 233, 234, 294 Ribeau, S., 13, 25, 47, 52, 53, 55, 56, 70,82,85,87,89, 173,291 Robbins, H., 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 294 Roberts, K. H., 7, 12, 296 Robichaud, D., 1, 5, 8, 27, 33,48, 295 Rogers, E. M., 102,294 Rose, L. F. R., 13, 47, 52, 55, 56, 70, 83, 183, 294

Rosnow.R.L., 131,291,294 Rowe.A., 236, 290

Sabshin, M., 244, 295 Schatzman, L., 244, 295 Schein.E. H., 189,296 Schiele, J., 13, 70, 74, 82, 87, 90, 96, 97, 98, 99, 295 Schweninger, L., 151, 152, 290 Seibold, D. R., 3, 9, 10, 27, 294, 295 Seidel, G., 243, 295

302 Shaw, L. L., 59, 295 Sherriton, J., 236, 237, 295 Shuter, R., 242, 295 Singelis.T. M.,25, 295 Smith, A., 58, 59, 61,62, 295 Smitherman, G., 13, 70, 58, 60, 61, 63, 65, 89, 289, 295 Sotirin, P., 223, 295 Spraggins, J. D., 183, 295 Stamps, J., 210, 292 Starosta, W. J., 2, 25, 242,243,289, 295 Stephens, R. J., 64, 295 Stern, J. L., 236, 237, 295 Stevens, P. E., 182,291 Stohl,C.,4, 5, 8, 21,33,209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 240, 293, 295 Strauss, A., 244, 295 Sullivan, W. M., 227, 288 Swidler, A., 227, 288

Taylor, F. W., 13, 295 Taylor, J. R., 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 27, 33, 48, 102, 289, 295 Thomas, D. A., 13, 70, 82, 287, 295, 296 Thomas, R., 19,296 Tipton, S. M., 227, 288 Toms, E, 96, 183, 184,288 Toop, D., 64, 296 Triandis, H. C, 52, 296 Tuckman, B. W., 228, 296

AUTHOR INDEX U-V Uchendu, V. C, 110, 111,296 Van Every, E. J., 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15,27,33,48,102,295 Van Maanen, J., 189,296 Vroom, V. H., 209, 296 W

Walker, C. J., 131,296 Warfield-Coppock, N., 7,13, 17,70, 74, 76, 79, 86,95, 99,100,101,102, 103,104,108,117,153,154,155, 156, 157, 158,202,203,247, 265, 296 Watzlawick, P., 213, 296 Weber, M., 13, 296 Wegner, J., 19, 296 Weick, K. E., 1,7, 8, 10, 12,15, 33, 296 Wharton.A. S., 13,70,296 White, J. L., 13, 47, 70, 296 White, K. P., 53, 297 White, R. K., 209, 296 Williams, R. L., 96, 296 Wilson, P. E., 61,296 Winters, C. A., 106, 107, 297 Woodruff, M., 19, 296 Wright, R., 57, 58, 297 Wright, R. C, 197, 199, 200, 293 Wyne, M. D., 53, 297 Y-Z Young, V., 183, 297 Yum, J. O.,243, 297 Zahan, D., 75, 297 Zonia, S. D., 13, 70, 292

Subject Index

Accommodation career development model, 194, 200201 co-cultural communication theory, 187-188 cultural diversity management, 21 -22 Accountability high-involvement organization, 248-249 team-based design, 257, 261, 268 African-American communication, see also Career development model; Co-cultural communication theory business studies, 182 contemporary organizations, 180-181 cultural quandary, 183-186 discrimination, 182-184, 200-201 educational model, 198-200 educational roles, 199-200 educational support groups, 197-198, 200 literature analysis, 181-188 mainstream quandary, 183-184, 186 military studies, 182 minority quandary, 183-186 public school studies, 182 school principal role, 199-200 triple quandary framework, 183-186 African-American communication styles Black English, 57 call-response, 57, 58, 60, 63-64 core value representation, 47 development of, 57-58 elementary school interviews, 59-60 folklore, 58, 62, 65 holism, 57 human service organization interviews, 59-60 indirection, 65 literature analysis, 57, 60-65 metaphorical reference, 65 myths, 58-59

narratives, 57-59, 61-65 Nommo philosophy, 58-61, 64, 87, 179 oratory, 59, 61, 179 rappin',58, 60, 64-65 repetition, 61-63 rhetorical structure, 61-63, 65 rhythm, 57, 60-61 significance of, 57 signifyin', 58, 60, 65 spirituality, 58-61, 63-64 storytelling, 62-65 stylin', 61-62 stylin' out, 62 talk-singing, 60-61 women, 60-61 African-American organizations, see also African-American rules/resources; Convergent organization; Divergent organization; Emergent model; Slavery baseline model, 10-12, 18,67-69 cultural homogeneity, 68-69 elementary school, 29-32 elementary school district, 29-31 holism, 28, 32-33, 57 humanistic model application, 278-279 human service organization, 29, 32 organizational challenges, 32 organizational recommendations, 32 organizational strengths, 32 organizational theory, 3-4, 7-8 research field notes, 29, 31-35 research interviews, 29, 31-32 research methodology, 32-34 research reporting scheme, 28 research validation, 34 African-American personality, 100-101 African-American rules/resources, see also African-American values; Afrocentric theory; specific rule/resource age/social practice, 70t, 84-85 303

304 axiology, 69r, 73-74 baseline model, 10-12, 67-69 circularity/social practice, 70r, 80-81, 90, 92-93 collectivism/social practice, 70f, 78-79, 85-87, 89-90, 93-94 common good/social practice, 70f, 8687 communalism/social practice, 70?, 87-89 community/social practice, 70(, 74-76, 87 comparison continua, 69, 71-72 continuous logic/social practice, 70f, 80-81,90,92 cultural philosophy differences, 69? cultural philosophy validation, 13, 69-70, 100 decision making, 89-90, 92-93 diunital perspective, 69?, 80 elementary school interviews, 73, 74, 76-91,93-95 epistemology, 69?, 80, 87 Eurocentric comparison, 71-74, 80, 88-89, 92-93 experience/social practice, 70;, 79-80 holism/social practice, 70?, 72, 80, 89-91,93 humanism/social practice, 70?, 73-74, 82, 86, 93-94 humanistic model development, 72 human service organization interviews, 73-79, 81-90, 92-94 inductivism/social practice, 70f, 89, 90, 93-95 interdependence/social practice, 70?, 85-87, 89, 93-94 interpenetration contradictions, 68-69, 71-72 intersubjectivity/social practice, 70?, 89-90, 92 logic dimension, 69?, 80-81 mission/social practice, 70/, 83-84, 93-94 ntuology, 69?, 80 overview, 69-72 polysynchronic time/social practice, 70?, 88-89 positional status, 92-93, 98

SUBJECT INDEX process dimension, 69( relational orientation/social practice, 70?, 73-74, 93-94 research conclusions, 115 shared responsibility/social practice, 70?, 76-77, 86 spirituality/social practice, 70f, 74, 85, 89-90, 93-94 spoken word/social practice, 70?, 87 summary, 95 unity/social practice, 70?, 78-79, 86-87, 89 African-American values assertiveness, 47, 52, 56-57 collectivism, 52, 68, 78-79, 85-87, 89, 90, 93-94 communalism, 52, 68, 74-76, 87-89 communication/interpersonal dynamics, 52, 56 communication style representation, 47 conversation, 47 core symbols, 47, 52-57 cultural identity/human development, 52-54, 56-57, 75, 83-84 diunital perspective, 55-56 elementary school interviews, 52-57 Eurocentric perspective, 55 expressive individualism, 52-53 hit list management, 55 holism, 52, 55-56 human service organization interviews, 47, 52-57 individual uniqueness, 47, 52-53, 82, 96, 98 leadership/management, 52, 56 literature analysis, 46-47 organizational criticism, 55-56 organizational loyalty, 54-55 positivity/emotional vitality, 47, 52-56 power/authority/control, 52, 76-77, 92-93 realism, 47, 52, 55-56, 89 relational orientation, 52, 73-74, 93-94 sharing, 47, 52 spirituality, 53-54, 74, 85, 89-90,93-94 African traditional organizations circularity, 113-114 collectivism, 111-112, 114 communalism, 110-112

SUBJECT INDEX cultural identity, 112 Eurocentric comparison, 113-115 hierarchical authority system, 110, 113-114 pyramidal authority system, 110, 114115 secret societies, 109-112 segmental authority system, 110-112 stateless systems, 109-112 state systems, 109 summary, 115 Afrocentric theory African-American personality, 100-101 age value, 103 authority, 102-105 axiology, 96, 98-99, 247 career development model, 105-106 career education, 105-106 circularity, 97-98, 102 collectivism, 96-97, 99, 101, 103-105 common good, 96-98, 104-105 communalism, 97, 99, 104-105 community, 98-99, 104-105 continuous logic, 102 control, 102 convergent organization, 242, 247 criticism of, 106-109 cultural identity transitions, 101 decision making, 97, 99 defined, 95 encounter identity, 101 enculturated organization, 99-105, 153-159 epistemology, 96, 98 Eurocentric comparison, 95-90, 100/, 101-109 experience, 103 extended self, 75, 80, 90 formal/informal organizations, 102 grounded theory approach, 99 holism, 104-105 humanism, 97, 99, 103-105 human service organizations, 96-99 immersion-emersion identity, 101 individual uniqueness, 96, 98 inductivism, 98 interdependence, 104-105 intern alization-commitment identity, 101

305 internalization identity, 101 intersubjectivity, 97, 98 leadership/management, 101-105 mission, 97-98, 104-105 organizational charts, 101-105 organizational development, 99-105 organizational form, 101-105 organizational models, 99-105 organizational morality, 97 organizational space, 104 organizational theory application, 95-106 polysynchronic time, 98 power, 97, 102-105 pre-encounter identity, 101 relational orientation, 97-99, 103-105 rules/resources validation, 75, 80, 90, 95-106 shared responsibility, 97-98, 104-105 spirituality, 96, 97, 99, 104-105 summary, 109 unity, 96-99, 104-105 working collectives, 101-105 Age value, see also Youth value African-American rules/ resources, 70/, 84-85 Afrocentric theory, 103 divergent organization, 136-137, 146 new plant approach, 250-251 social practice, 70r, 84-85 Aggressive approach, 187-188 Applied management, 247-249 Assertiveness African-American values, 47, 52, 5657 co-cultural communication theory, 187-188 Assimilation co-cultural communication theory, 187-188 cultural diversity management, 21-22 At-will firing, 127-128 Authority, see also Control; Experience; Leadership; Management; Power African-American values, 52, 76-77, 92,93 African traditional organizations, 110-115 Afrocentric theory, 102-105

306

SUBJECT INDEX

divergent organization, 120-123, 133, 136-137, 143-144, 146, 148-153 downward communicative spiral, 161-163, 174-178, 180 emergent model, 48-52 emergent model application, 212-213, 218,224,227 emergent model constructs, 35f, 44-46 emergent model themes, 34, 35f, 44-46 enculturated organization, 154, 156, 158-159 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12f, 14 hierarchical authority system, 110, 113-114 middle management, 120-122, 152153 new plant approach, 250-253 participation adaptation paradox, 213 participation commitment paradox, 218 participation control paradox, 224 participation design paradox, 212-213 productivity involvement approach, 254 pyramidal authority system, 110, 114-115 segmental authority system, 110-112 slavery, 148-153 social practice, 12(, 14 team-based design, 257, 261, 263264, 266-267 Axiology African-American rules/resources, 69t, 73-74 Afrocentric theory, 96, 98-99, 247 enculturated organization, 154, 156-157 B Baseline model, see also AfricanAmerican rules/resources; Divergent organization; Eurocentric rules/resources; Structuration theory African-American organizations, 10-12, 18,67-69 African-American rules/resources, 10-12,67-69 bureaucratic theory, 11 classical theory validation, 11, 13

communicative constitution theory, 4,8-10 completion of, 205-209, 238-240 conversation, 9, 10 cultural diversity, 16-18 cultural foundations, 16-18 cultural homogeneity, 12, 15, 17, 68-69 cultural philosophy validation, 13, 69-70 emergent model application, 203209,221-222,238-240 enculturated organization, 17-18 Eurocentric organizations, 10-12, 67-69 Eurocentric rules/resources, 10-16, 67-69 holism, 11 humanistic model development, 72, 203,211,271,278,280 interpenetration contradictions, 17-18, 68-69,71-72 natural blend, 11, 15-16,68 organization defined, 8 overview, 11-12, 15 social practices, 9-17 structuration defined, 9 structure defined, 9-10 structure duality, 10 structure interpenetration, 10-12, 15-17, 67-69 structure/system relations, 8-12 system defined, 9-10 text, 9 Black English, 57 Brother to Brother, 197-198, 200 Bureaucratic organization new/old logic organizing, 248-250, 264-265 vs. high-involvement organization, 248-250, 255-256 vs. humanistic model, 271, 275, 277 vs. team-based design, 255-257, 260, 262-265, 269 Bureaucratic theory, 11 C

Call-response, 57-58, 60, 63-64

SUBJECT INDEX Career development model accommodation, 194, 200-201 adjusting phase, 189, 191-192 adjusting phase behaviors, 193-194 adjusting phase problems, 193-194 adjusting phase solutions, 194 Afrocentric theory, 105-106 avoidance behavior, 192-193 communication theory, 188-189 confrontive behavior, 194 discrimination, 189-191, 195-197 entry phase, 189-191 entry phase behaviors, 192-193 entry phase problems, 192-193 entry phase solutions, 192-193 fit-in behavior, 192-193 glass ceiling, 189-190 informal communications network, 193 job mastery phase, 189 planned growth phase, 189, 192 planned growth phase behaviors, 195 planned growth phase problems, 195 planned growth phase solutions, 195 power model, 192 pre-positioning, 192-193 resistance behavior, 194 self-talk, 192 success phase, 189, 192 success phase behaviors, 195-196 success phase problems, 195-196 success phase solutions, 196 Career education, 105-106 Center For Effective Organizations (University of Southern California), 247-248, 255-256 Circularity, see also Linearity African-American rules/resources, 70r, 80-81,90, 92-93 African traditional organizations, 113-114 Afrocentric theory, 97-98, 102 divergent organization, 122-131, 133, 146 emergent model application, 215, 220-221,227 new plant approach, 251-253 participation formalization paradox, 215

307 participation representation paradox, 220-221 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, IQt, 80-81, 90, 92-93 team-based design, 260-261, 268 Classical organizational theory, 11, 13 Cochran, Johnnie, 61 Co-cultural communication theory, 184, 186-188 accommodation, 187-188 aggressive approach, 187-188 assertive approach, 187-188 assimilation, 187-188 communication approach, 187-188 nonassertive approach, 187-188 overview, 188f preferred outcomes, 187-188 separation, 187-188 Cognitive mechanism emergent model, 48, 50-52, 205 humanistic model, 277-279,280/, 281/ Collaboration, 50-51 Collaborative participation logic, 210 Collectivism, see also Individualism African-American rules/resources, 70f, 78-79, 85-87, 89-90, 93-94 African-American values, 52, 68, 78-79, 85-87, 89-90, 93-94 African traditional organizations, 111-112, 114 Afrocentric theory, 96-97, 99, 101, 103-105 divergent organization, 122-129, 136-137, 146 emergent model application, 215-220, 224, 227 new plant approach, 250-253 participation autonomy paradox, 217 participation commitment paradox, 218 participation control paradox, 224 participation representation paradox, 219-220 participation responsibility paradox, 215-216 participation sociality paradox, 217 productivity involvement approach, 254

308 social practice, 70/, 78-79, 85-87, 89, 90, 93-94 team-based design, 257, 266-268 Colonialism, 147 Commitment, see also Participation commitment paradox internalization-commitment identity, 101 team-based design, 268-269 team-based organization, 234 Common good, see also Competition African-American rules/resources, 70f, 86-87 Afrocentric theory, 96-98, 104-105 divergent organization, 136-141,146 emergent model application, 218-219, 224-225, 227 participation commitment paradox, 218-219 participation control paradox, 224 participation homogeneity paradox, 225 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 70?, 86-87 team-based design, 268 Communalism, see also Information efficiency African-American rules/resources, 70/, 87-89 African-American values, 52, 68, 74-76, 87-89 African traditional organizations, 110-112 Afrocentric theory, 97, 99, 104-105 divergent organization, 117-129, 133, 136-137, 146,148 emergent model application, 216, 217, 227 participation cooperation paradox, 216 participation sociality paradox, 217 social practice, 70;, 87-89 team-based design, 268 Communication African-American values, 52, 56 downward communicative spiral, 161-163, 174-180 emergent model, 48-52, 56 emergent model constructs, 35;, 38-39

SUBJECT INDEX emergent model themes, 33, 35/, 38-39 Communication technology, 255 Communicative constitution theory collective interpretation, 5-7 communication action, 5-6 communicational lens, 5 communication representation, 5-6 conversation, 5-7, 9-10 cultural assumptions, 1-2 discourse theory, 6-7 group level, 5-7 individual level, 7 lists, 4-5 macro level, 7 micro level, 7 ontology, 5-7 organizational container metaphor, 5,8 organizational emergence, 5-7 organizational form of life, 6-7 organizational machine metaphor, 8 organizational mapping, 6-7 organizational society, 6-7 organizational structure correspondence, 4 organization defined, 8 personal connections, 4 stories, 4-5 structure/system relations, 4, 8-10 text, 5-7, 9 Community, see also Profit African-American rules/resources, 70/, 74-76, 87 Afrocentric theory, 98-99, 104-105 convergent organization, 269-271 divergent organization, 133, 136137, 144, 146 enculturated organization, 157 social practice, 70/, 74-76, 87 Competition, see also Common good divergent organization, 136-141, 146 emergent model application, 218219, 224-225, 227 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12/, 14 participation commitment paradox, 218-219 participation control paradox, 224 participation homogeneity paradox, 225

SUBJECT INDEX productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 12t, 14 team-based design, 268 Conflict, see also Unresolved conflict denial of, 236 personality, 231 suppression of, 236 time, 142-146 workplace violence, 230, 236 Continuous logic, see also Dichotomous logic African-American rules/resources, 70*, 80-81,90, 92 Afrocentric theory, 102 divergent organization, 123-129, 131-133, 146 new plant approach, 250-251, 253 participation commitment paradox, 218 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 70f, 80-81, 90, 92 team-based design, 260-261, 266-268 Control, see also Authority; Leadership; Management; Participation control paradox; Power; Shared responsibility African-American values, 52, 7677, 92, 93 Afrocentric theory, 102 divergent organization, 117-129, 133, 146, 148-153 downward communicative spiral, 161-163, 174-178, 180 emergent model, 48-52 emergent model application, 212213, 224-225, 227 emergent model constructs, 35f, 44-46 emergent model themes, 34, 35r, 44-46 enculturated organization, 156 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12f, 14 new plant approach, 250-253 participation adaptation paradox, 213 participation control paradox, 224 participation design paradox, 212 participation homogeneity paradox, 225

309

participation leadership paradox, 225 productivity involvement approach, 254 slavery, 148-153 social practice, 12f, 14 team-based design, 257, 264, 266-267 Convergent organization, see also High-involvement organization; Humanistic model; Team-based design African-American organization implications, 242, 246-247 African-American organization intervention, 242, 246-247 Afrocentric theory, 242, 247 applied management analysis, 247249 community/profit, 269-271 consciousness-raising, 246-247 cultural diversity management, 243-245, 247 culturally-embedded form/design, 241-247,249 defined, 241-242 downward communicative spiral, 241, 246-247 empowerment, 245 intercultural communication training, 242-243 intercultural sensitivity training, 242-243 managerial domination, 243-245, 247 multiculturalism, 241-243, 245-246 mutually constitutive rules/ resources, 242, 248 negotiated order theory, 244-245 new/old logic organizing, 248-249 organizational culture neutrality, 245-246 organizational diversity implications, 243-246 organizational restructuring, 244, 247-249 overview, 242-243, 272-275r research conclusions, 280-282 research objectives, 241-242 rules/resources practice, 272-275* rules/resources reconceptualization, 242, 248-249, 269-275* summary, 271

310 triangular/circular convergence, 272-275f triangular/circular divergence, 243, 247, 248 Conversation African-American values, 47 baseline model, 9, 10 communicative constitution theory, 57,9-10 emergent model, 48 Cooperation, 234, see also Participation cooperation paradox Cosmology, 154, 156 Crisis management divergent organization, 124-126 downward communicative spiral, 172-173 Cultural assumptions beliefs, 2 communication research, 1 cultural homogeneity, 3-4, 12, 15 culture defined, 2 group level, 2, 25-26 individual level, 2, 25-26 norms, 2 organizational behavior reflection, 2 organizational embeddedness, 1-2 organizational form reflection, 2 perception differences, 2 shared symbolic systems, 2, 12 summary, 26-27 values, 2 Cultural diversity baseline model, 16-18 convergent organization, 241-243, 245-246 defined, 26 enculturated organization, 154 Eurocentric organizations, 1-4, 7, 16-18 group level, 2, 25-26 humanistic model, 276-277 individual level, 2, 25-26 literature analysis, 18-19, 25-26 organizational implications, 243-246 organizational theory, 3-4, 7 structure interpenetration, 18 summary, 26-27 surface-level analysis, 3, 16-18, 20, 22-25

SUBJECT INDEX team-based organization, 236 Cultural diversity management accommodation, 21-22 assimilation, 21-22 deep diversity, 24 Eurocentric rules/resources, 19-20, 24 institutional practice, 18-24 literature analysis, 18-19 managerial bias, 21-22 managerial domination, 243-245, 247 neutralization of, 18-19 organizational container metaphor, 20 separation, 21 -22 surface-level analysis, 20, 22-24 U.S. Census (2000), 22-24 Cultural embeddedness convergent organization form/ design, 241-247, 249 humanistic model, 271, 276-280 organizational theory, 1-3 structuration theory, 9 Cultural foundations baseline model, 16-18 Eurocentric organizations, 3-4, 8, 16-18 organizational theory, 3-4, 7 Cultural homogeneity, see also Participation homogeneity paradox African-American organizations, 68-69 baseline model, 12, 15, 17, 68-69 cultural assumptions, 3-4, 12, 15 Eurocentric organizations, 3-4, 12, 15, 68-69 organizational theory, 3-4, 15 Cultural identity African-American values, 52-54, 56-57, 75, 83-84 African traditional organizations, 112 downward communicative spiral, 161-163, 173-178 emergent model, 48-54, 56-57 emergent model constructs, 35(, 40-43 emergent model themes, 34, 35r, 40-43 Cultural identity transitions Afrocentric theory, 101 encounter identity, 101 immersion-emersion identity, 101 internalization-commitment identity, 101

SUBJECT INDEX internalization identity, 101 pre-encounter identity, 101 Cultural philosophy African-American rules/resources, 13, 69-70, 100 baseline model, 13,69-70 Eurocentric comparison, 69f validation of, 13, 69-70, 100 Cultural quandary, 183-186 D Decision making African-American rules/resources, 89-90, 92, 93 Afrocentric theory, 97, 99 emergent model, 50 enculturated organization, 154, 156, 158-159 Democratic National Convention (1988), 61 Dichotomous logic, see also Continuous logic divergent organization, 123-129, 131-133, 146 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12(, 14, 80 new plant approach, 250-251, 253 participation commitment paradox, 218 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 12r, 14 team-based design, 260-261, 266-268 Disaster spiral, 232-233 Discourse theory, 6-7 Discrimination African-American communication, 182-184,200-201 career development model, 189-191, 195-197 Diunital perspective African-American rules/resources, 69(, 80 African-American values, 55-56 Divergent organization, see also Downward communicative spiral; Enculturated organization age/youth value, 136-137, 146 at-will firing, 127-128

311 authority, 120-123, 133, 136-137, 143-144, 146, 148-153 baseline model, 72, 116-117 benefits, 136-137 circularity/linearity, 122-131, 133, 146 collectivism/individualism, 122-129, 136-137,146 common good/competition, 136-141, 146 communalism/information efficiency, 117-129, 133, 136-137,146,148 community/profit, 133, 136-137, 144, 146 compensation, 134-137 compensation increase, 135 compensation inequity, 135-136 continuous/dichotomous logic, 123-129, 131-133, 146 contradiction conceptualization, 72 control, 117-129, 133, 146, 148-153 crisis management, 124-126 defined, 116-117 dress code, 130 elementary school interviews, 119,127-135,137-141,145-146 employee orientation programs, 132-133 employee respect, 129, 133-134 executive team process, 122-123 experience/authority, 122-123, 133, 136-137, 143-144, 146, 148-153 favoritism, 128-129 fragmentation, 137-142 gossip/rumors, 129, 131-132 hit list management, 127-128 holism/dualism, 131-132, 146 humanism/objectification, 131-134, 136-137, 144, 146, 153 human service organization interviews, 117-146 inductivism/reductionism, 136-137,146 information flow, 138-139 interdependence/self-reliance, 122, 129, 136-137, 146 intersubjecti vity/objectivity, 122-129, 136-137, 146 intimidation management, 127-128 managerial requirements, 129-131 managerial role, 117-123

312 managerial spending, 126 micromanagement, 124, 148-149, 152-153 middle management authority, 120-122, 152-153 mission/productivity, 133, 141-144, 146 organizational space, 141-142 polysynchronic/monosynchronic time, 133, 142-146 power, 120-129, 139-141, 148-153 redundancy, 141 relational/task orientation, 117-129, 130-131, 133,146,148 research conclusions, 159 shared responsibility/control, 117129, 133, 146, 148-153 spirituality/materialism, 146 spoken/written word, 129-131, 144,146 summary, 146 time conflicts, 142-146 timeliness concept, 145-146 top-heavy management, 126 unity/hierarchy, 117-129, 133, 136137, 146,148-153 whim management, 124-125 workflow, 138-139 Diversity, see Cultural diversity Downward communicative spiral, see also Emergent model application communication/interpersonal dynamics, 161-163, 174-180 convergent organization, 241, 246, 247 crisis management, 172-173 cultural identity/human development, 161-163, 173-178 downward spiral, 170-174 elementary school interviews, 161, 165, 167, 169 humanism/objectification, 179 humanistic model, 275 human service organization interviews, 160, 161, 163-178 immobilization, 160-161, 165-167, 170-178, 180 individual immobilization, 165-167 institutional conflict, 163-165 interpersonal conflict, 163-165

SUBJECT INDEX intimidation management, 172 leadership/management, 161-163, 174-178, 180 managerial spending, 170-171 micromanagement, 179-180 organizational/human erosion, 160161, 167-178, 180 organizational space, 171 overview, 161/ power/authority/control, 161-163, 174-178, 180 problematic interaction, 161-163 relational/task orientation, 161-163, 174-180 research conclusions, 200-201 sequencing process, 161 simultaneous process, 160-161 slavery impact, 178-180 societal forces, 169 system immobilization, 165-167 team-based design, 256 unresolved conflict, 160-161, 163165, 170-178, 180 Dress code, 130 Dualism, see also Holism divergent organization, 131-132,146 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12;, 14 new plant approach, 251-253 participation autonomy paradox, 217 participation commitment paradox, 218 participation leadership paradox, 225 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, \2t, 14 team-based design, 260-261, 267-268

Emergent model cognitive mechanism, 48, 50-52, 205 collaboration, 50, 51 communication/interpersonal dynamics, 48-52, 56 conversation, 48 cultural identity/human development, 48-54, 56-57 decision making, 50 development of, 32-35

SUBJECT INDEX holism, 48 humanistic model, 271, 280 human service organization interviews, 50-52 leadership/management, 48-52, 56 organizational mapping, 48 overview, 49/ power/authority/control, 48-52 problematic defined, 48,49 problematic interrelation, 47-52 problematic manifestation, 52-57 problematic placement, 47-50 problematic rotation, 49-50 problematic sets, 48-50 relational/task orientation, 47-52 research conclusions, 66 social cognition, 48 text, 48 theoretic development, 34-35 Emergent model application, see also Participation; Team-based organization African-American organization, 202-206 African-American organization impact, 226-227 African-American organization restructuring, 206 authority/experience, 212, 213, 218, 224, 227 baseline model, 203-209, 221-222, 238 baseline model completion, 205-209, 238-240 cognitive mechanism, 205 collaborative participation logic, 210 competition/common good, 218-219, 224-225, 227 control/shared responsibility, 212-213, 224-225, 227 downward spiral validation, 210, 227-238 Eurocentric organization, 207-226 Eurocentric organization restructuring, 209-210, 227-238 hierarchy/unity, 212-213, 218, 224, 225, 227 immobilization, 210, 228, 230-231, 235, 237-238

313 individualism/collectivism, 215-220, 224, 227 information efficiency/communalism, 216-217, 227 introduction, 202 linearity/circularity, 215, 220-221,227 objectivity/intersubjectivity, 219, 227 organizational/human erosion, 210, 228, 230, 235, 237-238 participation paradox, 210-221 participation paradox/divergence, relation, 210-211,225-226 problematic sets, 205-209, 238-240 productivity/mission, 213, 215-216, 224, 227 research conclusions, 240 self-reliance/interdependence, 217, 219-220, 224, 227 task/relational orientation, 214, 217, 224, 227 technical participation logic, 210 triangular/circular defined, 203, 207 triangular/circular divergence, 202-204, 207-210, 221-222, 225228, 232-233, 236-240 unresolved conflict, 210, 228-234, 236-238 upward communicative spiral, 204205, 207 working collectives, 202 Emergent model constructs communication/interpersonal dynamics, 35/, 38-39 cultural identity/human development, 35/, 40-43 elementary school interviews, 37-39, 42-46 human service organization interviews, 36-45 leadership/management, 35/, 43-44 overview, 35/ power/authority/control, 35 f, 44-46 relational/task orientation, 35-38 Emergent model themes authority, 34, 35/, 44-46 collapse of, 35-46 communication, 33, 35/, 38-39 control, 34, 35/, 44-46 cultural identity, 34, 35/, 40-43

314 development of, 32-33 human development, 34, 35;, 40-43 identification of, 33-34 interpersonal dynamics, 33, 35;, 38-39 leadership, 34, 35;, 43-44 management, 34, 35/, 43-44 organizational identity, 33, 35(, 40-43 others' relationship orientation, 33, 35-38 others' work orientation, 33, 35-38 own relationship orientation, 33, 3538 own work orientation, 33, 35-38 power, 34, 35;, 44-46 professional identity, 33, 35;, 40-43 Employee absenteeism, 223 Employee compensation benefits, 136-137 divergent organization, 134-137 increases, 135 inequity, 135-136 Employee conditioning, 237 Employee orientation programs, 132-133 Employee respect, 129, 133-134 Employee reward system new plant approach, 252 productivity involvement approach, 255 team-based design, 260, 262 Employee selection, 250-251 Employee training intercultural communication, 242-243 intercultural sensitivity, 242-243 new plant approach, 252-253 Empo w erment capability, 259-262 convergent organization, 245 defined, 258-259, 262 direction, 259-262 new plant approach, 250 team-based design, 258-262 team-based organization, 230, 237-238 Encounter identity, 101 Enculturated organization administration, 154, 156, 158 African-American personality, 100-101 Afrocentric theory, 99-105, 153-159 authority, 154, 156, 158-159 axiology, 154, 156-157 baseline model, 17-18

SUBJECT INDEX community/profit, 157 control, 156 cosmology, 154, 156 cultural diversity, 154 cultural identity transitions, 101 decision making, 154,156, 158-159 epistemology, 154, 156-157 Eurocentric organizations, 7, 17-18, 99-105, 153-159 homecoming myth, 156-157 humanism/objectification, 156-157 leadership, 154, 156, 158 management, 154, 156, 158 mission/productivity, 157 ontology, 154, 156-157 organizational charts, 101-105 organizational form, 101-105 organizational space, 104 organizational theory, 7 overview, 100;, 155; power, 154, 156, 158-159 productivity, 154, 156-159 rules/resources comparison, 100105, 153-159 staff relations, 154, 156, 158-159 working collectives, 101-105 work orientation, 154, 156, 158-159 Epistemology African-American rules/resources, 69;, 80, 87 Afrocentric theory, 96, 98 enculturated organization, 154, 156157 Eurocentric organizations, see also Convergent organization; Divergent organization; Emergent model; Eurocentric rules/resources baseline model, 10-12, 67-69 communication research, 3, 8 cultural diversity, 3-4, 7, 16-18 cultural foundations, 3^1, 8,16-18 cultural homogeneity, 3-4, 12, 15, 68-69 design features, 3-4 enculturated organization, 7, 17-18, 99-105, 153-159 feminist theory, 3, 16 organizational communication, 7-8 patriarchal features, 3, 16

SUBJECT INDEX structural features, 3-4, 7 summary, 26-27 Eurocentric rules/resources, see also Divergent organization; specific rule/resource African-American comparison, 71-74, 80, 88-89, 92-93 authority/social practice, 12/, 14 baseline model, 10-16, 67-69 competition/social practice, 12/, 14 control/social practice, 12r, 14 cultural diversity management, 19-20, 24 dichotomous logic/social practice, 12f, 14, 80 dualism/social practice, 12/, 14 hierarchy/social practice, 12f, 14 individualism/social practice, 12f, 14 information efficiency/social practice, 12f, 14 linearity/social practice, 12/, 14-15 materialism/social practice, 12?, 13-14 monosynchronic time/social practice, lit, 14 objectrfication/social practice, 12/, 14 objectivity/social practice, 12r, 14 overview, 12/ productivity/social practice, 12/, 14 profit/social practice, 12f, 14 reductionism/social practice, 12/, 15 self-reliance/social practice, 12/, 14 social practices, 11-16 task orientation/social practice, 12(, 13 written word/social practice, 12/, 14 youth/social practice, 12/, 14 Executive team divergent organization, 122-123 team-based design, 258-264 Experience, see also Authority African-American rules/resources, 70/, 79-80 Afrocentric theory, 103 divergent organization, 122-123, 133, 136-137, 143-144, 146, 148-153 emergent model application, 212-213, 218, 224, 227 new plant approach, 250-253 participation adaptation paradox, 213 participation commitment paradox, 218

315 participation control paradox, 224 participation design paradox, 212-213 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 70/, 79-80 team-based design, 257, 261, 263-264, 266-267 Expressive individualism, 52-53 Extended self, 75, 80, 90

Fannie Mae, 270-271 Fannie Mae Foundation (FMF), 270-271 Favoritism, 128-129 Fayol, Henri, 11 Feminist theory, 3, 16 Folklore, 58, 62, 65 Formal/informal organizations, 102, 265 G-H Glass ceiling, 189-190 Grounded theory, 99 Groupthink, 225 Heuristic approach, 277-280, 281/ Hierarchy, see also Unity African traditional organizations, 110,113-114 divergent organization, 117-129, 133, 136-137, 146, 148-153 emergent model application, 212-213, 218, 224-225, 227 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12/, 14 new plant approach, 250-251, 253 participation adaptation paradox, 213 participation commitment paradox, 218 participation control paradox, 224 participation design paradox, 212-213 participation homogeneity paradox, 225 participation leadership paradox, 225 productivity involvement approach, 254 slavery, 148-153 social practice, 12/, 14 team-based design, 257-259, 264, 266-268

316

SUBJECT INDEX

High-involvement organization, see also New plant approach; Productivity involvement approach accountability, 248-249 features of, 249 involvement/control orientation, 249 new/old logic organizing, 248-250 organizational convergence, 249-250 organizational restructuring, 248-250 power, 248-249 responsibility, 248-249 triangular/circular divergence, 249 vs. bureaucratic organization, 248250, 255-256 High-performance work system (HPWS), 233, 236 Hit list management African-American values, 55 divergent organization, 127-128 Holdout, 229 Holism, see also Dualism African-American organizations, 28, 32-33, 57 African-American rules/resources, 70f, 80,89,90-91,93 African-American values, 52, 55-56 Afrocentric theory, 104-105 baseline model, 11 divergent organization, 131-132, 146 emergent model, 48 new plant approach, 251-253 participation autonomy paradox, 217 participation commitment paradox, 218

participation leadership paradox, 225 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 70(, 80, 89-91, 93 team-based design, 260-261, 267, 268 Homecoming myth, 156-157, 185-186, 201 Human development African-American values, 52-54, 56-57, 75, 83-84 downward communicative spiral, 161-163, 173-178 emergent model, 48-52-54, 56-57 emergent model constructs, 35t, 40-43

emergent model themes, 34, 35(, 40, 41-43 Human development erosion, see also Immobilization; Oranizational erosion; Unresolved conflict downward communicative spiral, 160-161, 167-178, 180 emergent model application, 210, 228, 230, 235, 237-238 team-based organization, 228, 230, 235, 237-238 Humanism, see also Objectification African-American rules/resources, 70?, 73-74, 82, 86, 93-94 Afrocentric theory, 97, 99, 103-105 divergent organization, 131-134, 136-137, 144, 146, 153 downward communicative spiral, 179 enculturated organization, 156-157 model development, 72 new plant approach, 252-253 participation adaptation paradox, 213 participation representation paradox, 220 slavery, 153, 179-180 social practice, 70t, 73-74, 82, 86, 93-94 team-based design, 269 Humanistic model African-American organization application, 278-279 baseline model, 72, 203, 211, 271, 278, 280 cognitive mechanism, 277-279, 280/, 281/ convergent organization, 243, 246, 269,271,275-280 culturally-embedded form/design, 271,276-280 downward communicative spiral, 275 emergent model, 271, 280 heuristic approach, 277-280, 281/ multiculturalism, 276-277 mutually constitutive rules/ resources, 275-279 negotiation of difference, 279, 280/ problematic conceptualization, 279280,281/

SUBJECT INDEX rules/resources reconceptualization, 275-279 triangular/circular convergence, 275-278 triangular/circular divergence, 271, 275 upward communicative spiral, 280 vs. bureaucratic organization, 271, 275, 277 1

Immersion-emersion identity, 101 Immobilization, see also Human development erosion; Organizational erosion; Unresolved conflict downward communicative spiral, 160161, 165-167, 170-178,180 emergent model application, 210, 228,230-231,235,237-238 individual, 165-167 system, 165-167 team-based organization, 228, 230231,235,237-238 Imperialism, 147 Indirection, 65 Individualism, see also Collectivism African-American values, 47, 52-53, 82, 96, 98 divergent organization, 122-129, 136-137,146 emergent model application, 215-220,224,227 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12f, 14 expressive individualism, 52-53 individual uniqueness, 47, 52-53, 82, 96,98 new plant approach, 250-253 participation autonomy paradox, 217 participation commitment paradox, 218 participation control paradox, 224 participation representation paradox, 219-220 participation responsibility paradox, 215-216 participation sociality paradox, 217 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 12r, 14

317 team-based design, 257, 266-268 Inductivism, see also Reductionism African-American rules/resources, 70f, 89, 90, 93-95 Afrocentric theory, 98 divergent organization, 136-137, 146 new plant approach, 251, 253 participation cooperation paradox, 216-217 participation formalization paradox, 215 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 70/, 89-90, 93-95 team-based design, 260 Information divergent organization, 138-139 team-based design, 261-262, 268 Information efficiency, see also Communalism divergent organization, 117-129, 133, 136-137, 146, 148 emergent model application, 216-217, 227 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12(, 14 participation cooperation paradox, 216 participation sociality paradox, 217 social practice, 12(, 14 team-based design, 268 Interdependence, see also Self-reliance African-American rules/resources, 70t, 85-87, 89, 93-94 Afrocentric theory, 104-105 divergent organization, 122-129, 136-137, 146 emergent model application, 217, 219-220, 224, 227 new plant approach, 250-253 participation autonomy paradox, 217 participation control paradox, 224 participation representation paradox, 219-220 participation sociality paradox, 217 social practice, 70f, 85-87, 89, 93-94 team-based design, 257, 266-268 Internalization-commitment identity, 101 Internalization identity, 101 Interpersonal dynamics African-American values, 52, 56

318

SUBJECT INDEX

downward communicative spiral, 161-163, 174-180 emergent model, 48-52, 56 emergent model constructs, 35;, 38-39 emergent model themes, 33, 35(, 38-39 Intersubjectivity, see also Objectivity African-American rules/resources, 70t, 89-90, 92 Afrocentric theory, 97-98 emergent model application, 219, 227 participation commitment paradox, 219 social practice, 70f, 89-90, 92 team-based design, 268 Intimidation management divergent organization, 127-128 downward communicative spiral, 172 J Jackson, Jesse, 60-61 Japan, 2 Job descriptions, 265-266 Job design, 251-252 K-L King, Martin Luther, Jr., 60 Leadership, see also Management; Participation leadership paradox African-American values, 52, 56 Afrocentric theory, 103-105 downward communicative spiral, 161-163, 174-178, 180 emergent model, 48-52, 56 emergent model constructs, 35f, 43-44 emergent model themes, 34, 35/, 43-44 enculturated organization, 154, 156, 158 team-based organization, 231, 236-238 Linearity, see also Circularity divergent organization, 122-131, 133, 146 emergent model application, 215, 220-221, 227 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12f, 14-15 new plant approach, 251-253 participation formalization paradox, 215

participation representation paradox, 220-221 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 12f, 14-15 team-based design, 260-261, 268 Lists, 4-5 M Mainstream quandary, 183-184, 186 Malcolm X, 61 Management, see also Authority; Career development model; Control; Cultural diversity management; Leadership; Power African-American values, 52, 56 at-will firing, 127-128 by crisis, 124-126, 172-173 downward communicative spiral, 161-163, 174-178, 180 emergent model, 48-52, 56 emergent model constructs, 35f, 43-44 emergent model themes, 34, 35r, 43-44 enculturated organization, 154, 156, 158 executive team process, 122-123 favoritism, 128-129 hit list, 55, 127-128 by intimidation, 127-128, 172 managerial role, 117-123, 267 micromanagement, 124, 148-149, 152-153, 179-180 middle management authority, 120-122, 152-153 resource allocation, 126, 170-171, 261 top-heavy, 126 by whim, 124-125 Materialism, see also Spirituality divergent organization, 146 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12f, 13-14 new plant approach, 251 participation formalization paradox, 215 social practice, 12f, 13-14 team-based design, 269 Metaphorical reference communication style, 65 organizational container, 5, 8, 20

SUBJECT INDEX Micromanagement divergent organization, 124, 148-149, 152-153 downward communicative spiral, 179-180 Middle management authority, 120-122, 152-153 Minority quandary, 183, 184-186 Mission, see also Productivity African-American rules/resources, 70f, 83-84, 93-94 Afrocentric theory, 97-98, 104-105 divergent organization, 133, 141-144, 146 emergent model application, 213, 215-216, 224, 227 enculturated organization, 157 new plant approach, 251 -252 participation adaptation paradox, 213 participation control paradox, 224 participation formalization paradox, 215 participation responsibility paradox, 216 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 70f, 83-84, 93-94 team-based design, 264, 268 Monosynchronic time, see also Polysynchronic time divergent organization, 133, 142-146 Eurocentric rules/resources, I2t, 14 participation punctuation paradox, 214 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 12r, 14 Multiculturalism, see also Cultural diversity convergent organization, 241-243, 245-246 humanistic model, 276-277 Mutually constitutive rules/resources convergent organization, 242, 248 humanistic model, 275-279 team-based design, 257, 265-269 Myths communication style, 58-59 homecoming myth, 156-157, 185-186, 201

319 N

Narratives, 57-59, 61, 62-65 Narrative theory, 6 Negotiated order theory focus of, 244-245 research implications, 245 symbolic interactionism, 244-245 system contradictions, 244 Negotiation of difference, 279, 280/ New plant approach, see also Productivity involvement approach authority/experience, 250-253 control/shared responsibility, 250-253 dichotomous/continuous logic, 250251,253 dualism/holism, 251-253 employee selection, 250-251 employee training, 252-253 empowerment, 250 hierarchy/unity, 250-251, 253 high-involvement organization, 249253 individualism/collectivism, 250-253 job design, 251-252 linearity/circularity, 251-253 materialism/spirituality, 251 objectification/humanism, 252-253 organizational convergence, 250-253 organizational structure, 253 physical layout, 251 productivity/mission, 251-252 reductionism/inductivism, 251, 253 reward system, 252 rules/resources reconceptualization, 250-253 self-reliance/interdependence, 250-253 triangular/circular divergence, 250 youth/age value, 250-251 Nommo philosophy, 58-61, 64, 87, 179 Nonassertive approach, 187-188 Ntuology, 69r, 80 O

Objectification, see also Humanism divergent organization, 131-134, 136-137, 144, 146, 153 downward communicative spiral,179

320 enculturated organization, 156-157 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12;, 14 new plant approach, 252-253 participation adaptation paradox, 213 participation representation paradox, 220 slavery, 153, 179-180 social practice, 12f, 14 team-based design, 269 Objectivity, see also Intersubjectivity emergent model application, 219, 227 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12;, 14 participation commitment paradox, 219 social practice, 12;, 14 team-based design, 268 Ontology communicative constitution theory, 5-7 enculturated organization, 154, 156, 157 Oppressive derivatives, 149-150 Oratory, 59,61 Organizational charts, 101-105 Organizational criticism, 55-56 Organizational erosion, see also Human development erosion; Immobilization; Unresolved conflict downward communicative spiral, 160-161, 167-178, 180 emergent model application, 210, 228, 230, 235, 237-238 team-based organization, 228, 230, 235, 237-238 Organizational identity, 33, 35;, 40, 42-43 Organizational mapping communicative constitution theory, 6-7 emergent model, 48 Organizational morality, 97, 118 Organizational space Afrocentric theory, 104 divergent organization, 141-142 downward communicative spiral, 171 enculturated organization, 104 new plant approach, 251 Organizational theory, see also Communicative constitution theory

SUBJECT INDEX African-American organizations, 3-4, 7-8 Afrocentric theory application, 95-106 classical era, 11, 13 communication research, 1-3, 8 cultural assumptions, 1-2 cultural diversity, 3-4, 7 cultural embeddedness, 1-3 cultural foundations, 3-4, 7 cultural homogeneity, 3-4, 15 enculturated organization, 7 Eurocentric organizations, 3-4,7-8 organizational communication, 1, 4-8 organizational cultures, 1-2, 7-8 organization defined, 8 summary, 26-27 systems theory, 8

Participation collaborative logic, 210 emergent model application, 210-226 paradox/divergence relation, 210-211, 225-226 paradoxes of, 210-226 technical logic, 210 Participation adaptation paradox authority/experience, 213 control/shared responsibility, 213 hierarchy/unity, 213 objectification/humanism, 213 productivity/mission, 213 structure paradox, 211,213 Participation agency paradox, 215-217 overview, 210-211 Participation autonomy paradox agency paradox, 215, 217 dualism/holism, 217 individualism/collectivism, 217 self-reliance/interdependence, 217 Participation commitment paradox authority/experience, 218 competition/common good, 218-219 dichotomous/continuous logic, 218 dualism/holism, 218 hierarchy/unity, 218 identity paradox, 217-219 individualism/collectivism, 218

SUBJECT INDEX objectivity/intersubjectivity, 219 triangular/circular divergence, 218-219 Participation compatibility paradox, 217, 222-223 Participation control paradox absenteeism, 223 authority/experience, 224 competition/common good, 224 control/shared responsibility, 224 hierarchy/unity, 224 individualism/collectivism, 224 power paradox, 223-225 productivity/mission, 224 self-reliance/interdependence, 224 task/relational orientation, 224 triangular/circular divergence, 223-225 Participation cooperation paradox agency paradox, 215-217 information efficiency/communalism, 216 quality circles, 216 reductionism/inductivism, 216-217 triangular/circular divergence, 216-217 Participation design paradox authority/experience, 212-213 control/shared responsibility, 212 hierarchy/unity, 212-213 structure paradox, 211-213 triangular/circular divergence, 212-213 Participation formalization paradox linearity/circularity, 215 materialism/spirituality, 215 productivity/mission, 215 reductionism/inductivism, 215 structure paradox, 211, 214-215 written/spoken word, 215 Participation homogeneity paradox competition/common good, 225 control/shared responsibility, 225 groupthink, 225 hierarchy/unity, 225 power paradox, 223, 225 Participation identity paradox, 217-221 overview, 210-211 Participation leadership paradox control/shared responsibility, 225 dualism/holism, 225 hierarchy/unity, 225 power paradox, 223, 225

321 Participation power paradox, 223-225 overview, 210-211 Participation punctuation paradox monosynchronic/polysynchronic time, 214 structure paradox, 211, 213-214 task/relational orientation, 214 Participation representation paradox identity paradox, 217, 219-221 individualism/collectivi sm, 219-220 linearity/circularity, 220-221 objectification/humanism, 220 self-reliance/interdependence, 219-220 triangular/circular divergence, 219-221 Participation responsibility paradox agency paradox, 215-216 individualism/collectivi sm,215-216 productivity/mission, 216 triangular/circular divergence, 215-216 Participation sociality paradox agency paradox, 215, 217 individualism/collectivism, 217 information efficiency/communalism, 217 self-reliance/interdependence, 217 task/relational orientation, 217 Participation structure paradox, 211-215 overview, 210-211 Patriarchy, 3, 16 Perception differences, 2 Performance definition, 260, 262 Performance development, 260, 262 Performance management, 258-269 Performance requirements, 260, 267268 Performance review, 260, 262 Performance reward system, 260, 262 Physical space, see Organizational space Polysynchronic time, see also Monosynchronic time African-American rules/resources, 70/, 88-89 Afrocentric theory, 98 divergent organization, 133, 142-146 participation punctuation paradox, 214 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 70f, 88-89 Positional status, 92-93, 98

322 Positivity/emotional vitality, 47, 52, 5356 Power, see also Authority; Control; Leadership; Management; Participation power paradox African-American values, 52, 76-77', 92-93 Afrocentric theory, 97, 102-105 career development model, 192 divergent organization, 120-129, 139141, 148-153 downward communicative spiral, 161-163, 174-178, 180 emergent model, 48-52 emergent model constructs, 35r, 44-46 emergent model themes, 34, 35/, 44-46 enculturated organization, 154, 156, 158-159 high-involvement organization, 248-249 slavery, 148-153 Pre-encounter identity, 101 Pre-positioning, 192-193 Productivity, see also Mission divergent organization, 133, 141-144, 146 emergent model application, 213, 215-216,224,227 enculturated organization, 154, 156159 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12;, 14 new plant approach, 251-252 participation adaptation paradox, 213 participation control paradox, 224 participation formalization paradox, 215 participation responsibility paradox, 216 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 12r, 14 team-based design, 264, 268 Productivity involvement approach, see also New plant approach authority/experience, 254 communication technology improvement, 255 competition/common good, 254 control/shared responsibility, 254 dichotomous/continuous logic, 254

SUBJECT INDEX dualism/holism, 254 function integration, 253-255 hierarchy/unity, 254 high-involvement organization, 249250, 253-255 individualism/collectivism, 254 linearity/circularity, 254 monosynchronic/polysynchronic time, 254 organizational convergence, 253-255 organizational structure, 253-255 productivity/mission, 254 reductionism/inductivism, 254 reward system, 255 rules/resources reconceptualization, 254-255 self-managing teams, 253-255 self-reliance/interdependence, 254 total team environment, 254-255 Professional identity, 33, 35f, 40-43 Profit, see also Community convergent organization, 269-271 divergent organization, 133, 136-137, 144, 146 enculturated organization, 157 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12f, 14 social practice, 12f, 14 Pyramidal authority system, 110,114-115 Q-R Quality circles Japan,2 team-based organization, 216, 231, 233 Rappin',58, 60, 64-65 Realism, 47, 52, 55-56, 89 Reductionism, see also Inductivism divergent organization, 136-137, 146 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12(, 15 new plant approach, 251, 253 participation cooperation paradox, 216-217 participation formalization paradox, 215 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 12f, 15 team-based design, 260 Relational orientation, see also Task orientation

323

SUBJECT INDEX African-American rules/resources, 70/, 73-74, 93-94 African-American values, 52, 73-74, 93-94 Afrocentric theory, 97-99, 102, 103105 divergent organization, 117-131, 133, 146, 148 downward communicative spiral, 161-163, 174-180 emergent model, 47-52 emergent model application, 214, 217, 224, 227 emergent model constructs, 35-38 others, 33, 35-38 own, 33, 35-38 participation control paradox, 224 participation punctuation paradox, 214 participation sociality paradox, 217 social practice, 70f, 73-74, 93-94 team-based design, 266-267, 269 Repetition, 61-63 Resource allocation divergent organization, 126 downward communicative spiral, 170-171 management, 126, 170-171, 261 team-based design, 261 Responsibility, see also Participation responsibility paradox; Shared responsibility high-involvement organization, 248-249 skill identification, 257, 258-261 Reward system, see Employee reward system Rhythm, 57, 60-61

Secret societies, 109-112 Segmental authority system, 110-112 Self-managing teams, 253-255 Self-reliance, see also Interdependence divergent organization, 122-129, 136-137,146

emergent model application, 217, 219-220,224,227

Eurocentric rules/resources, 12f, 14 new plant approach, 250-253 participation autonomy paradox, 217 participation control paradox, 224 participation representation paradox, 219-220 participation sociality paradox, 217 social practice, 12f, 14 team-based design, 257, 266-268 Self-talk, 192 Separation co-cultural communication theory, 187-188 cultural diversity management, 21-22 Shared responsibility, see also Control African-American rules/resources, IQt, 76-77, 86 African-American values, 47, 52, 76-77, 86

Afrocentric theory, 97-98, 104-105 divergent organization, 117-129, 133, 146, 148-153 emergent model application, 212-213, 224-225, 227 new plant approach, 250-253 participation adaptation paradox, 213 participation control paradox, 224 participation design paradox, 212 participation homogeneity paradox, 225 participation leadership paradox, 225 productivity involvement approach, 254 social practice, 70f, 76-77, 86 team-based design, 257, 264, 266-267 Shared symbolic systems, 2, 12 Signifyin',58, 60, 65 Slavery authority, 148-153 colonialism, 147 control, 148-153 downward communicative spiral, 178-180 humanism/objectification, 153, 179-180 imperialism, 147 oppressive derivatives, 149-150 organizational impact, 148-153, 178-180 overseer role, 152-153, 179-180 power, 148-153

324 psychological impact, 147-152 superior-subordinate relationship, 148-152, 179-180 unity/hierarchy, 148-153 work attitude impact, 148-152 Spirituality, see also Materialism African-American communication styles, 58-61, 63-64 African-American rules/resources, 70f, 74, 85, 89-90,93-94 African-American values, 53-54, 74, 85, 89-90, 93-94 Afrocentric theory, 96-97, 99, 104-105 divergent organization, 146 new plant approach, 251 participation formalization paradox, 215 social practice, 70f, 74, 85, 89-90, 93-94 team-based design, 269 Spoken word, see also Written word African-American rules/resources, 70?, 87 divergent organization, 129-131, 144, 146 participation formalization paradox, 215 social practice, 70r, 87 team-based design, 260 Staff relations, 154, 156, 158-159 Stateless systems, 109-112 State systems, 109 Storytelling communication style, 62-65 structuration theory, 4-5 Structuration theory communicative constitution theory, 4,8-10 cultural embeddedness, 9 individual action/social structures, 9-10 lists, 4-5 social practices, 9 stories, 4-5 structuration defined, 9 structure defined, 9-10 structure stability/change, 9-10 structure/system relations, 4, 8-10 summary, 26-27 system defined, 9-10

SUBJECT INDEX Stylin', 61-62 Stylin' out, 62 Superior-subordinate relationship, 148-152, 179-180 Support systems, 258, 262-263 Symbolic interactionism, 244-245 Symbolic systems, 2, 12 Symbolic values, 47, 52-57 Systems theory, 8

Task orientation, see also Relational orientation divergent organization, 117-131, 133, 146, 148 downward communicative spiral, 161-163, 174-180 emergent model, 47-52 emergent model application, 214, 217, 224, 227 emergent model constructs, 35-38 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12;, 13 others, 33, 35-38 own, 33, 35-38 participation control paradox, 224 participation punctuation paradox, 214 participation sociality paradox, 217 social practice, 12r, 13 team-based design, 266-267, 269 Taylor, Frederick, 11 Team-based design accountability, 257, 261, 268 assessment of, 263-264 authority, 257, 261 authority/experience, 257, 261, 263264, 266-267 business-unit team, 258-264 commitment, 268-269 competition/common good, 268 control/shared responsibility, 257, 264, 266-267 defined, 255-256 dichotomous/continuous logic, 260261, 266-268 divergence/convergence cycle, 257258 downward communicative spiral, 256 dualism/holism, 260-261,267-268

SUBJECT INDEX empowerment capability, 259-262 empowerment defined, 258, 259, 262 empowerment direction, 259-262 executive team, 258-264 formal/informal processes, 265 foundation development, 263 functional organizations, 256 generation of, 263 goal alignment, 259-260 hierarchy/unity, 257, 258-259, 264, 266-268 implementation concerns, 258-269 implementation stages, 263-264 implementation steps, 258 individualism/collectivism, 257, 266268 information efficiency/communalism, 268 information infrastructure, 261-262 intersubjectivity/objectivity, 268 job descriptions, 265-266 linearity/circularity, 260-261, 268 managerial role, 267 materialism/spirituality, 269 matrix organizations, 256 mutually constitutive rules/ resources, 257, 265-269 new/old logic organizing, 264-265 objectification/humanism, 269 organizational changes, 265-269 organizational convergence, 256-269 organizational problems, 258, 264-265 organizational transition, 258, 260-265 performance definition, 260, 262 performance development, 260, 262 performance management, 258-269 performance requirements, 260, 267-268 performance review, 260, 262 performance reward system, 260, 262 productivity/mission, 264, 268 project organizations, 256 project team, 258-264 reductionism/inductivism, 260 resource allocation, 261 responsibility/skill identification, 257, 258-261 rules/resources reconceptualization, 257-269

325 self-reliance/interdependence, 257, 266-268 support system development, 258, 262-263 task/relational orientation, 266-269 team-based organization, 256-257 team-based structure, 256-257 team charter, 260-261 teams, 256 virtual teams, 269 vs. bureaucratic organization, 255257, 260, 262-265, 269 working relationships, 266-267 written/spoken word, 260 Team-based organization centralized control, 230 commitment phase, 234 competition, 229-231 conflict denial, 236 conflict suppression, 236 conflict violence, 230, 236 confusion phase, 234 consensus phase, 234 control phase, 234 cooperation phase, 234 cultural diversity, 236 disaster spiral, 232-233 downward spiral validation, 227-238 emergent model application, 209-210, 215-217, 223-225, 227-238 employee conditioning, 237 empowerment, 230, 237-238 expectations, 233-234 forming phase, 228 high-performance work system (HPWS), 233, 236 holdout, 229 immobilization, 228, 230-231, 235, 237-238 leadership ambiguity, 231, 236-238 literature analysis, 227-238 mistrust, 231-232 norming phase, 228 organizational/human erosion, 228, 230, 235, 237-238 organizational restructuring, 232-233, 236-238 performing phase, 228 personality conflict, 231

326

SUBJECT INDEX

policy/procedure divergence, 230-231 quality circles, 216, 231, 233 role ambiguity, 230-231, 236-238 self-managing teams, 253-255 storming phase, 228-232 task responsibility, 229-230 time constraints, 234 total team environment, 254-255 toxic teaming atmosphere, 231 traditional employee syndrome, 237 unresolved conflict, 228-232-234, 236-238 Team charter, 260-261 Technical participation logic, 210 Text baseline model, 9 communicative constitution theory, 5-7,9 emergent model, 48 Top-heavy management, 126 Total team environment, 254-255 Toxic teaming atmosphere, 231 Traditional employee syndrome, 237 Triple quandary framework cultural quandary, 183-186 mainstream quandary, 183-184,186 minority quandary, 183-186 U

Unity, see also Hierarchy African-American rules/resources, 70/, 78-79, 86-87, 89 African traditional organizations, 110, 113-114 Afrocentric theory, 96-99, 104-105 divergent organization, 117-129, 133, 136-137, 146, 148-153 emergent model application, 212-213,218,224-225,227 new plant approach, 250-251, 253 participation adaptation paradox, 213 participation commitment paradox, 218 participation control paradox, 224 participation design paradox, 212-213 participation homogeneity paradox, 225 participation leadership paradox, 225 productivity involvement approach, 254

slavery, 148-153 social practice, 70/, 78-79, 86-87, 89 team-based design, 257, 258-259, 264, 266-268 Unresolved conflict, see also Conflict; Human development erosion; Immobilization; Organizational erosion downward communicative spiral, 160-161, 163-165, 170-180 emergent model application, 210, 228-234, 236-238 institutional, 163-165 interpersonal, 163-165 team-based organization, 228-234, 236-238 Upward communicative spiral emergent model, 204-205, 207 humanistic model, 280 U.S. Census (2000), 22-24 V-W Virtual teams, 269 Washington Post, 22, 23, 24 We Are Volunteer Employees (WAVE), 270 Weber, Max, 11 Whim management, 124-125 Work attitude, 148-152 Worker participation, see Participation Working collectives, 101-105, 202 Work orientation, 154, 156, 158-159 Workplace violence, 230, 236 Written word, see also Spoken word divergent organization, 129-131, 144, 146 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12/, 14 participation formalization paradox, 215 social practice, 12/, 14 team-based design, 260

Youth value, see also Age value divergent organization, 136-137, 146 Eurocentric rules/resources, 12/, 14 new plant approach, 250-251