Hidden Connections

After reading Fritjof Capra's book, Hidden connections: Integrating the biological, cognitive, and social dimensions of life into a science of sustainability, I vacillate between hope and despair. He offers a provocative look at our world today.

Chapter 4 on Life and Leadership in Organizations provides a wealth of useful constructs to use in my paper on shared governance in the community college. He maps his previous discussions of the features of living systems more directly to organizations in this chapter.

He cites the dual nature of human organizations as the reason for their difficulty with change. First, organizations are designed for specific purposes (most for making profits). At the same time, organizations are made up of communities of people who build meaningful relationshps within their everyday work. He argues that change cannot be externally designed for living systems. The nature of systems is that they can only be "disturbed". "Meaningful disturbances will get the organization's attention and will trigger structural changes" (p. 112). Change cannot be mandated from the top, but needs to emerge from the natural processes of living systems.
We need to involve people in the change process from the very beginning, so it is meaningful.

The mechanistic approach to management is considered by Capra to be a major obstacle to organizational change. Even though this approach has increased productivity and efficiency, it does not allow for the flexibility and adaptations needed in today's global environment. Capra points to two key features of companies with a long history: a strong sense of community and common values and acceptance of new ideas in order to learn and adapt.
He distinguishes between the formal structures of the organization and the informal structures - both are needed. The creativity and adaptability within the organization is housed in its informal networks of communications.

An important idea of living communities is their self-generating nature; they create share meaning which shapes the identity and rules of conduct within the organization. Capra calls this shared meaning and knowledge along with the rules of conduct as the "dynamics of culture". The explicit knowledge of the organization can be communicated easily, but the tacit knowledge of the organization can only be learned through experience. Capra says that tacit knowledge is "created by the dynamics of culture resulting from a network of (verbal and nonverbal) communications within a community of practice" (p. 115) . Consequently, we cannot treat knowledge as something separate from the people and organization in which it exists.

Building community through food

Here's an alternative to the traditional pumpkin pie!

Pumpkin Bars
2 c flour
2 t baking powder
1/2 t salt
1 t pumpkin pie spice
1 t cinnamon
1 t baking soda
4 eggs
1 16 oz. can pumpkin
2 c sugar
1 c vegetable oil
1 c chopped nuts

Heat oven to 350. Combine dry ingredients. Add eggs, pumpkin, sugar, & oil. Beat well. Stir in nuts. Spread in greased 15 x10x1 pan. Bake 25 min. Cool

Frosting
1 3 oz. cream cheese, softened
1 T milk
1 3/4 c powdered sugar
1 t vanilla

Combine all ingredients and blend well. Spread on cooled pumpkin bars.

Enjoy!

Overview of Solomon and Flores: Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life,

Solomon and Flores explore the important idea of trust and its role in business and other arenas of life. They deconstruct the idea by looking at simple or naïve trust, blind trust, and mature or authentic trust. Simple trust is trust that is “yet unchallenged or unquestioned” (Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 31). This is the paradigm we have for trust, which is transparent and innocence, like a child’s trust in a parent. Blind trust is trust in denial; when trust has been betrayed, but the betrayal is ignored.
Authentic trust is “…fully self-aware, cognizant of its own conditions and limitations, open to new and even unimagined possibilities, based on choice and responsibility, rather than the mechanical operations of predictability, reliance, and rigid rule-following” (Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 59). Authentic trust is trust that is chosen and maintained with effort; it is a blend of both trust and distrust. It allows trust to be rebuilt if there is a breakdown of trust.
Often we think of trust based on familiarity, but as our world becomes smaller and more interconnected, we must trust others with whom we may have no personal relationship. More and more we must trust strangers in order to operate in our day-to-day lives. When considered from the context of entrepreneurial college, trust in our partners is critically important. If we distrust each other, we are less likely to develop a cooperative relationship. Trusting is taking a risk.
Developing authentic trust requires an openness and honesty that is often not desired in institutions. Instead, what replaces trust is “cordial hypocrisy” in which members of the institution pretend to trust, instead of exploring differences honestly. Harmony is maintained, but it is at the risk of undermining the health of the organization. Open distrust is healthier, because the institution can take steps to deal with something known. “Denial, not distrust, is perhaps the greatest enemy of trust”(Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 59). I think it is a vitally important to create a climate that allows for open expression of differences instead of fostering one that encourages a “happy face” that covers deep-seated problems.
In authentic trust, both parties understand the mutual obligations and responsibilities that each brings to the relationship. It is trust based on reciprocity. If there is a breakdown in trust, one must assess what is not working, and make changes needed to renew trust. Solomon and Flores contend that the way that trust can be restored is not just through earning trust, but also by giving trust freely. That seems naïve upon first consideration, but it does convey the message of giving someone a second chance. Trust lost is very hard to regain; it is better to limit one’s commitments to those that can be kept. Word, once given, needs to be kept.
The challenges of creating trust within an institution are amplified by the reciprocal nature of trust. When it is not clear who is responsible for something, it is hard to give trust. Trust is based on relationships; in large institutions individuals must often rely on others with whom they have little or no connections. Those individuals who are skilled at building relationships are often the ones who can get things done within the system; they know whom they can trust to follow through on commitments. Instead of systems that work effectively, often it will be a patchwork of individuals who can make things happen – an inefficient approach at best.
Trust seems to be a linchpin needed for creation of a healthy organizational climate. It is built daily by the actions taken by the leadership of the organization that are congruent with the values espoused. It requires trusting the individual employee in the organization to do his or her job in accordance with the mission of the organization. A trusting foundation allows the individuals within the organization to be open, honest, creative, innovative, and risk-taking.

Solomon, R. C., & Flores, F. (2001). Building trust in business, politics, relationships, and life.

New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.