Ethical Climate vs Ethical Culture

Both ethical climate and ethical culture are two terms that have been used interchangeably in organizations to describe overall ethical aspects within organizations.  However, many different scholars have pointed out differences between the two terms, as well as similarities, and have defined the two terms in their own way.  First, I will define the terms, and then I will describe the differences and similarities between ethical climate and ethical culture. 

Definitions:

            Ethical climate is defined by Trevino, Butterfield and McCabe (1995) as a construct that “measures organizational members’ perceptions of the extent to which the organization’s normative systems are consistent with a number of normative ethical theories" (p. 10).   As I understand this then, ethical climate is the employees’ perceptions on how the organization works and how the organization complies with ethical decisions overall as well as how the organization is viewed by others.  Another definition of ethical climate is: “Ethical climate refers to an organization's culture, environment, motives, and pressures. It is the role of senior executives to establish, drive and reinforce ethical climate throughout an organization” (Marwick, 1997).   Therefore, Marwick is stating that the ethical climate is also the ideas of an organization and the culmination of other ethical aspects within an organization that gives the company an overall value system that is ultimately cared for and looked after by management.  According to Bowditch, Buono, and Stewart, ethical climate is also a construct that applies not necessarily to reality but to the perceptions and evaluations of employees (2008, p. 335).   Overall then, the definition of ethical climate can be culminated to state it is a combination of an organization’s beliefs or value systems and the alignment of those beliefs with employee perceptions and how the company appears to people overall.  

            Trevino, et al defines ethical culture as “a subset of organizational culture, representing a multidimensional interplay among various formal and informal systems of behavior control that are capable of promoting ethical or unethical behavior” and therefore can also be a good predictor of employee behavior (Key, 1999).  The Canadian Center of Ethics describes ethical culture as the part of an organization’s culture “that drives beliefs, norms, and actions” of employees (Ethics Centre CA, 2008).   Therefore with these definitions that are very close to one another, it is safe to state that the ethical culture is defined as an integral part of organizational culture which is based on value systems and beliefs that control and organize employees’ behaviors through value systems and beliefs. 

Differences:

            With the definition of ethical culture and ethical climate examined, the differences are apparent that, though similar (discussed below), these two issues in management and business are separate and distinct.   Ethical culture is aimed at controlling behaviors and includes such things as rewards, rules, and norms within an organization whereas ethical climate is the outward and inward appearance of an organization which relates the organization’s overall values to employees and outsiders (Ethics & Compliance Officer Association, 2007).  According to Trevino, et al, ethical culture consists of “formal and informal control systems (e.g. rules, rewards, and norms) that are aimed more specifically at influencing behavior”; and the ethical climate of an organization includes “broad normative characteristics and qualities that tell people what kind of organization this is—essentially what the organization values” (2001, p. 308). Some major differences between ethical climate and culture include:

Ethical Climate:	Ethical Culture:
Mainly based on psychological theory.	Mainly based on anthropological theory.
Includes decision-making criteria; focuses on behaviors, employee attitudes and outwardly visible organization values.	Includes rewards, norms, rules, and a punishment system.
Focuses on the overall impact of the image of the organization – the organization’s personality.	Includes informal and formal control systems that regulate and influence employee behavior as well as teach employees how to behave.

 Note: Table adapted from the Canadian Center for Ethics and Corporate Policy: http://www.ethicsworld.org/corporategovernance/PDF%20links/ManageEthicsNL_Summer08_FA.pdf 

            Essentially, ethical culture is different from ethical climate in that ethical culture is considered a directional tool that provides employees with direct for their every day behaviors with reward/punishment systems in place – the anthropological aspect of an organization. Ethical climate is included in the organization’s ethical culture and is the overall way employee’s and outsiders view the organization – the psychological aspect of an organization (Ethics & Compliance Officer Association, 2007). 

Similarities:

            Ethical culture and ethical climate overlap because ethical climate is a part of ethical culture (Appelbaum, Deguire, & Lay, 2005).  Through reading and research, it seems that both of these terms are used interchangeably within organizations but are also considered to go hand-in-hand in many ways.  For instance, both ethical climate and ethical culture influence the overall organizational culture and impact rates of misconduct, organizational expense, employee performance, employee commitment to an organization, employee perceptions of authority and leadership, and employee satisfaction.  The ethical culture is created by the ethical climate and it is the manager’s job to handle and appropriate rules, rewards, punishments, and an overall positive image of the company to employees at all times to maintain both the ethical culture and climate; “the attitudes, choices, and actions of business leaders play a primary role in the creation of an organization’s ethical culture and climate” (Ethics & Compliance Officer Association, 2007).  Therefore, although ethical culture and ethical climate are scholarly different aspects within an organization, an overlapping occurs between the two elements; employees use the terms interchangeably and both ethical culture and climate affect similar aspects within the organization itself.

References:

Appelbaum, S. H., Deguire, K. J., & Lay, M. (2005). The relationship of ethical climate to             deviant workplace behaviour. Appelbaum Consultants. Retrieved November 9, 2012,   from www.appelbaumconsultants.com/articles/2005-06/relationship.PDF

Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). Chapter 5: Group Dynamics. A Primer on Organizational Behavior (7th ed., p. 155). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). Chapter 10: Organizational Culture and             Effectiveness. A Primer on Organizational Behavior (7th ed., pp. 325-328, 335).   Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ethics Centre CA. (2008). Developing and Maintaining an Ethical Corporate Culture. Canadian Center for Ethics and Corporate Policy. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from   http://www.ethicsworld.org/corporategovernance/PDF%20links/ManageEthicsNL_Sum          mer08_FA.pdf

Ethics & Compliance Officer Association. (2007, October 15). Ethical Culture Building: A  Modern Business Imperative. Ethics Resource Center. Retrieved November 6, 2012, from www.ethics.org/files/u5/ECOA-Report-FINAL.pdf

Key, S. (1999). Organizational Ethical Culture: Real or Imagined?. Journal of Business Ethics,20(3), 218,219.

Khai, E. (2012). Hawthorne Effect (Mayo). All you need to know about management. Retrieved November 11, 2012, from  http://www.12manage.com/methods_mayo_hawthorne_effect.html

Marwick, P. (1997). KPMG US -- Business Ethics. www.andrew.cmu.edu. Retrieved November 7, 2012, from             http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/80241/guided_inquiries/articles/kpmg_bus_ethics_proc.html

Tharp, B. M. (2012). Defining “Culture” and “Organizational Culture”: From Anthropology to     the Office. Haworth. Retrieved November 11, 2012, from www.haworth.com/en-us/knowledge/workplace-library/documents/defining-culture-and-organizationa-culture_5.pdf

Trevino, Butterfield and McCabe (1995), ‘Contextual Influences on Ethics-Related Outcomes in Organizations: Rethinking Ethical Climate and Ethical Culture’, paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meeting, Vancouver, BC.

Trevino, Butterfield and McCabe. (2001). The Ethical Context in Organizations: Influences on Employee Attitudes and Behaviors. The Next Phase of Business Ethics, 3: 301-337.

Wilkins, A. (1984). The creation of company cultures: The role of stories and human resource systems. Human Resource Management, 23(1), 41-60.

Management: Affirmative Action and Diversity Training

In Favor of Diversity Training:

“Here is not merely a nation but a teeming Nation of nations.” “Here the flowing trains, here the crowds, equality, diversity, the soul loves” (Whitman & Beach, 2012).  

 The United States is a land full of diverse people – we are not a nation of just one race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc…  The only thing most of the people of America actually have in common is that our ancestors all traveled here by way of the ocean.  Diversity is around everyone of us constantly; especially in the workplace.  I am from a small town called Farmington Missouri and even in this very small town I have friends of all colors, nationalities, sexual orientation, both male and female, of all ages, and religions.  It is because of this diversity among people that there is a large need for effective diversity training in the workplace.  I say effective diversity training here, because the training needs to be done properly and needs to be taught by an instructor who actually understands how to teach the program based on research/tools that have been proven to assist employees in the training process.   If a manager is simply going through the motions and just doing what is required of them to get people through a training program, then chances are that the program is not going to be as effective as it would be if a proper instructor was doing the training.

Some people cannot rely on parental guidance, legal reprimand, or even social cues to learn how to be tolerant and respectful of others.  From what I have personally witnessed myself, some people enjoy being rude and ignorant when it comes to other people who are different than they are (even if they know it’s wrong to admit aloud that they are prejudice).   Ignorance fuels discrimination and inhibits diversity.  However, ignorance is a curable affliction - "Teaching leads to understanding, understanding leads to tolerance, tolerance leads to diversity, diversity leads to acceptance and acceptance leads to peace” (Fang, 2005).  This is why diversity training is necessary in the workforce.  The information regarding diversity needs to be given to people; after all, would a little education hurt anyone?  Even if a person is extremely tolerant, diversity training would simply be a reinforcement tool.  It is my experience when re-learning something, I always learn something new.  

The overall goals of diversity training are to “minimize discrimination and harassment lawsuits” and to improve “acceptance and understanding of people with different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, and lifestyles” (Mathis & Jackson, 2009).  However, giving information to people is simply not enough.  People must embrace the idea behind the information; “Research has shown that it is only when people take diversity personally that they are able to turn it into a practice at work” (Gilliard, 2008).  Therefore, the concept of tolerance and acceptance must also be integrated into an effective diversity training program in addition to the basic information of diversity in the workplace and the person/employee needs to be a willing participant in the training program.  Managers truly need to be able to provide effective diversity programs for their employees in an attempt to educate them on the diverse nature of the workplace.  Diversity is prevalent in the workplace and a good program to teach diversity is essential to the harmony of a diverse set of employees. “Diversity is a reality for employers today, and effective diversity management is crucial to HR management” (Mathis & Jackson, 2009).

As a side note, and something to ponder – diversity leads to synergy; new ideas from a diverse background of people.  The introduction and mixing of cultures, languages, technology and much more comes from the fact that the world is diverse and people do have the ability to communicate effectively with those who are different than themselves (the Internet, and globalization are examples).  Now, my question is, how would the world be if all people remained in their own little groups of all-white, all-black, all-Asian, all-gay, all-straight, all-Christian, all-Muslim, all-female, all-male groups?  How would the workplace be different if it was like this?  How would it be better or worse?  Would there be as much discovery and innovation in the world?  These types of questions are important to me because I feel as a human race, these trivial issues of skin color and other genetic assignments should not be considered whatsoever. And for those who are not sure how to treat fellow humankind in the workplace (or the world for that matter), effective diversity training is a step in the right direction.

  

References:

Fang, S. (2005, Jul 12). Ignorance, terrorism go hand in hand. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution, pp. 13-A.13. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/337201135?accountid=38003

Gilliard, J. P. (2008). Diversity training: A study of the impact of diversity training on organizational performance, financial results and accountability. Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304815214?accountid=38003. (304815214).

Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2009). Equal Employment/Diversity. Human resource management essential perspectives (5th ed., p. 56,57). Australia: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Whitman, W., & Beach, J. M. (2012). Book XXIII. Walt Whitman: Leaves of grass (the complete1891-92 edition) (p. 241). Austin, TX: Createspace. (Original work published 1892)

Against Affirmative Action: 

This word alone does not sit well with many people when thinking about Affirmative Action.   The purpose of Affirmative Action is to include minorities who would otherwise not be included in the workplace due to possible discrimination.  “Through Affirmative Action, employers are urged to hire groups of people based on their race, age, gender, or national origin to make up for historical discrimination” (Mathis & Jackson, 2009). 

Does Affirmative Action cause Reverse Discrimination, polarization, resentment, and separatism among employees:

Many Americans feel that Affirmative Action is a form of reverse discrimination; that if they are a white male, they have fewer opportunities in the workplace.  A testing technician in Gilbert, Arizona, Joseph Ruhnke, stated “It just makes me upset when this subject gets thrown down your throat. I'm a white single male and they try to make you feel guilty because they're not getting jobs and that it's our fault. It's not my fault that somebody can't get a job.” (Morin & Warden, 1995).  When employees are upset in the workplace and feel they are discriminated against but have no real outlet to protect them such as the minorities, I can see where there can be polarization, resentment, and separatism.  It would seem that Affirmative Action reinforces separatism not with skin color, race, or religion, but by grouping minorities against the majority which is the white male.  Some people in the minority group see things just a little differently than Joseph Ruhnke. Graig Gillis, age 25, stated, “There should be some type of reparations for 300 to 400 to 500 years of discrimination of all types of minorities, not just blacks” (Morin & Warden, 1995).  But there already has been justice for the inequalities against women, African American, Native Indian, and more minorities in the United States.  When is enough, enough?  No wonder there is some resentment, polarization, separatism, and feelings of reverse discrimination in the workplace.  Even with laws and policies in place, the NAACP, all-black movie channels, etc... Some people still want more and believe just due to their skin color they are owed more.   This sense of entitlement from a white person, black person, Asian person, gay person, or any person in general creates resentment in other people.  Dan Oswald states regarding the Declaration of Independence: “Nowhere in there does it say we are entitled to respect or to be treated a certain way. And expecting those things, having a sense of entitlement, causes bitterness and resentment.” (Oswald, 2012).   One of the key points outlined in the text states “Affirmative Action creates more equality for all persons, even if temporary injustice to some individuals may result” (Mathis & Jackson, 2009).  And the debate is before us under this section because “Affirmative Action penalizes individuals (males and whites) even though they have not been guilty of discrimination” (Mathis & Jackson, 2009). Since Affirmative Action is based on equality and fairness, does this seem truly fair?

Though quotas are illegal in the United States, do the goals of organizations sometimes become quotas when hiring minorities:   

According to the text, “Goals become quotas by forcing employers to ‘play by the numbers’”. (Mathis & Jackson, 2009).   The Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 1978 through the Bakke decision (formerly The University of California Regents v. Bakke) that quotas were unconstitutional.  Allan Bakke, a white male, applied for medical school and was denied even when minority students were admitted to the program that had lower scores/admission requirements - “applicants were admitted under the special program with grade point averages, MCAT scores, and benchmark scores significantly lower than Bakke's.” (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS 1978).  The argument for Bakke fell under The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which states: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”. (Title VI, 1986).   Even though quotas are illegal due to precedence now in the United States, another point is to be made from this case:  Why an executive order now when there are other protections granted through precedence and The Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that clearly protects anyone, not just minorities, from discrimination under the law?      

Do the minorities being hired actually want the charity of Affirmative Action (case in point: white women):  

A story: 

As a white female, I do not feel the need for Affirmative Action.  I feel that my gender has not had an effect on my grades, my life, my personal or professional circumstances and quite frankly the only time I do get offended is when I am referred to as “the weaker sex” or a “minority” because I have good self-esteem. I do not appreciate the labels, nor do I need the labels in order to succeed in life.  I had never been discriminated against due to my race, gender, age, or sexual orientation until I was hired for the purpose of having a woman on an all-white, all-male sales team at an organization when I was 19 years old (I was actually told that is why I was being hired by my boss at the time).  I was not qualified as much as other applicants and I found this out later, but I was 19, I had a daughter to support and I was not going to turn down a job.  I performed the job well, however the men at the job were upset and angry that their boss hired a woman for the position “just because” and because of the fact that I had no official training for the job.  They left pictures of naked women on my desk, they called me derogatory names referring to my sexual orientation (they thought I was gay for some reason), and having been a new mother, they would often call me at my desk and pretend to be advocates from the Division of Child Services claiming I was being investigated.  A couple of the salesmen even exposed themselves to me.  Could I have sued on so many different levels of injustice here?  Certainly.  Did I? No.  I didn’t because I did not want or need anyone’s pity.  Instead I made a plan.  I took all of their sales by simply being a better salesperson; I then called the main office and reported my sales for the previous two months because my sales were not being sent in for some reason before.  I was given “Employee of the Month” for my last two months of work and the owner of the organization came down to Cape Girardeau from St. Louis to personally thank me and take me out to dinner for a job well done.  After proving that I could not only do the job better as an untrained salesperson, I quit citing my reasons as “personal” and in the letter I stated that I was “proud to be the only salesperson in the history of the organization to have achieved 242 sales in only 45 days after only being hired for 4 months”. 

Sure, I felt horrible and what they did was not only wrong, it was illegal in many ways, but I did not need pity or a push.  I feel that perseverance in the face of diversity, tolerance in the face of ignorance, and gaining respect of peers through hard work is what is truly important.  One year later, I re-applied to the organization after all of the people who previously worked there were fired or left for their own reasons.  I worked there for another 6 months and maintained very high sales records (I left because I had to move to a different city).  I was not hired again because I was a woman, I was hired because I had more sales experience than the former applicants (and I made sure of it this time).  This experience taught me a lot about diversity as well as the workplace environment, but most of all it taught me how not to hate or be resentful toward people just because a handful of those types of people were ignorant.  In other words, I do not feel that society owes me anything; I feel that I owe my society something. I am not alone in the feelings of other people labeled the same way in our society as a minority.  “Two out of three women opposed affirmative action preference programs for women, compared to three out of four men.” (Morin & Warden, 1995).  Maybe in the 1960’s and 1970’s Affirmative Action was the most helpful but I feel that it has worn out its welcome. “Few white women think themselves beneficiaries of affirmative action, and most are simply not open to the idea that they have been; few if any expect it to help them in the future; and most share the same concerns as white men regarding "reverse discrimination," or the perceived hiring of unqualified minorities.” (Wise, 1998). 

Side note ** On the case for both diversity training and Affirmative Action, one clear constant keeps arising – that is the level of education and qualifications of people after K-12 school.  I have run into countless articles providing direct links between quality of education, intelligence, pay scale, and tolerance.  I read complaints regarding a level playing field for all races but the ground is only truly level when there are equal qualifications. Perhaps the problem really isn’t with the types of diversity training, or the “temporary injustices” of Affirmative Action; however perhaps the problem rests with the quality of education for our children in the United States?      

References:

Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2009). Equal Employment/Diversity. Human resource management essential perspectives (5th ed., p. 57,58). Australia: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Morin, R., & Warden, S. (1995, March 24). Washingtonpost.com: AMERICANS VENT ANGER AT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. Retrieved September 9, 2012, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/politics/special/affirm/stories/aa032495.htm

Oswald, D. (2012, March 2). Dangers of a Sense of Entitlement | The Oswald Letter by Dan Oswald. Hr Hero Blogs. Retrieved September 9, 2012, from http://blogs.hrhero.com/oswaldletters/2012/03/02/dangers-of-a-sense-of-entitlement/

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964. (1986, October 21). OASAM. United States Department of Labor. Retrieved September 9, 2012, from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titlevi.htm

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=438&invol=265

Wise, T. (1998). Is sisterhood conditional: White women and the rollback of affirmative action. NWSA Journal, 10(3), 1-26. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/233240063?accountid=38003

Management - Internal and External Environments

I owned a business for over 10 years and with owning the business I noticed that I could create (or better yet, control) the internal environment but also that the external environment influenced my company greatly – much more so than I could control.  Everything I controlled within my business was a response in one way or another to the dynamic external environment.  As an example, I could choose to carry specific product lines, where to ship, what relationship to create, build, or discard, and whether or not I wanted to be more customer-centric.  There were many variables that I could experiment with to create more profits; however, I could not control many things.  Consumer demand, new government policies or recalls on baby items, government fees, prices offered by my competitors, new entrants into the industry, and customer issues with product shortages (supply) were all uncontrollable aspects of the external environment and all of these aspects affected the way I did business, internally.

Expanding on the issue of an organization creating its environment is relatively complex because it largely depends on the type of organization.  For instance, Weick mentioned in his article that Polaroid was able to create a situation where the stock was “less attractive to hold” and ultimately satisfied a “self-fulfilling prophecy” (Weick, 2001).   Weick stated through examples that banks, actors, and physicians can also create their environments through investor size and contribution, improvisation in theater, and type 2 errors when diagnosing patients.  Essentially when a company is creating its environment, it is creating a situation where the environment is conducive to growth and their structure is not necessarily attached to the demands of the external environment.  My argument is this:  How can a company truly believe they are creating their own environment when they are creating/controlling the environment in response to ultimate consumer or other demand?  I mean, the entire existence of the organization is for the purpose of helping others, creating profit, other otherwise dealing with other people in general.  I can understand how creation of the environment can be seen in the examples that Weick provided, but people bailing out on stock? Doctors diagnosing patients incorrectly get more business; and improvisational actors having fun?  I agree that these organizations are being more proactive than reactive to their specific environments; however the situations in these examples are not necessarily contributing to the growth of business (monetarily or otherwise).  My main concern here is do companies create the environment because they want to or because they need to (response mechanism to externalities)?  I feel that Weick’s article is very interesting and is a good read; however I feel that the examples have narrow scope and are not exactly indicative of the majority of organizations.  That is to say for instance that I hope doctors are not creating type 2 errors with the majority of their patients.  I feel that organizations evolve and adapt to changes in the external environment, but also try to control as much as possible, even if most of that creation or control is sometimes impossible and/or solely internal.  As stated in the text on page 274, “It is important to realize that while organizations can learn and adapt to their environment, they also, to varying degrees, attempt to change and control their environment” (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2007).     

Expanding on the issue of external environments influencing organizations is also complex, because, again, it largely depends on the type of organization to what degree the external environment has on the organization.  All organizations are affected by the general external environment which is discussed by Dr. Olga Chapa from the University of Houston-Victoria as “the economic, technological, sociocultural, and political trends that affect all organizations” (Uhv.edu, 2010).  In my company, I constantly had to change, or evolve, to the ever pressing demands from consumers.  I had to pay very close attention to recalls from the government, watch for new entrants into the industry, and constantly benchmarked competitor’s pricing and programs.  I could control the environment of the organization when it came to internal policies, which products to carry, and overall organizational climate. However, I could not control the external environment; instead I had to respond to it in order to survive in the industry.  For instance when customers were complaining about certain aspects of customer service, I had to change some of the corporate culture to respond to the demands.  As stated in the text, “organizations are open systems that are influenced by a multitude of environmental forces” (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart, 2007).   I completely agree with this statement, furthermore I believe that even though organizations try to create or control their environment they also are influenced by the environment and that an open system is a better choice for most organizations today due to the dynamic nature of the environment itself.   I feel this way because of consumer demands, economic issues, political conditions, rapid change in technology, and various other dynamic external conditions need to be responded to by an organization. It is this response that ultimately shapes the strategy the business uses.   The organization needs to be sensitive to the changes and respond appropriately and quickly to those external changes in order to succeed.  According to the Encyclopedia of Business Reference for Business online, “research during the 1960s showed that traditional bureaucratic organizations generally failed to succeed in environments where technologies or markets were rapidly changing. They also failed to realize the importance of regional cultural influences in motivating workers” (Referenceforbusiness.com, 2011).  I feel that organizations simply cannot afford not to be open systems due to the current market and consumer interests / demands.  But organizations still need to implement control of their organizational environment in response to the needs and pressures of the external environment. 

Weick takes the position that organizations mainly create their environments.  “Organizations are more active in constructing the environments that impinge on them than is commonly recognized” (Weick, 2001).  Weick believes that organizations create their environments and also have varying degrees of control over these environments once they are built.  Weick also states that “as an organization increases in size it becomes more and more its own selection system and finally quite literally does impose the environment that imposes on it”.   So, essentially Weick is stating that organizations build their own environments, and then eventually have to control the other aspects of environment once it is imposed onto the organization.  “Organizations have to build their environment before they can even have the luxury of controlling them” (Weick, 2001).  This statement says it all – Weick’s view is that an organization does not automatically know the environment because it has yet to be built and once it is built then the organization can worry about controlling it.  And that the only thing that is truly known is what a person has already done or what they are thinking.  Weick is concerned with the definitions of boundaries that are defined by other people.  He sees the definitions of these boundaries as non-existent and problematic.   Weick stated that “an organization can never know what it thinks or wants until it sees what it does” (Weick, 2001).   I understood this as an organization can offer a good or service to consumers and based on the consumers, then the organization can see what it wants and what it thinks about a situation.  Organizations will have to respond, evolve, and/or adapt to the external environment, especially in the case of a bad product or service being offered.  I wonder how Weick would reconcile advocacy groups, economic recessions, and new laws that are passed which affect business as usual.  Would Weick state that these were all conditions because the organizations made them so?   I can see Weick’s point, but I do not agree with it.  For instance, if I started a company again selling any type of product retail, I would have to exam the external environment first.  The external environment has a huge impact on what I can sell in this economy.  Then as new laws are passed, I would have to adhere to those laws; I would have to constantly adjust business due to the changing external environment.  I mean, bell-bottom pants and polyester white leisure suits were cool back in the day, but would they sell now?  Making adjustments due to the external environment is the evolution of an organization.

Personal thoughts:

Weick used three examples, which were described above in answer number 1, and states that the banks, physicians, and actors influence their environment instead of the environment influencing them.  At what point does an organization cross ethical lines when attempting to influence their environment?   Also, Weick dives deep into his article discussing environments as a psychological thing (he does have a Ph.D. in organizational psychology after all).  So, I have another question:  Are many organizations really solipsistic in nature?

Cognition & Sensemaking

Karl Weick’s article provided a link between cognition and the environment.  I took away a lot from this because I absolutely adore psychology and enjoy reading theories and various articles on the subject, especially regarding cognition and reality.  I felt that the entire take away from this article was to understand how a person (or organization) can justify their thoughts, rationalize their ideas and enact these emotions through sensemaking thus creating their environment.  According to Dr. Weick, “sensemaking fills important gaps in organizational theory.” And “The seemingly transient nature of sensemaking belies its central role in the determination of human behavior, whether people are acting in formal organizations or elsewhere” (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005).  Even though I have an opposing view on the some of Weick’s views (but I plan to read a lot more of his articles), I can understand what Dr. Weick and his colleagues were conveying –that people or organizations gather thoughts and ideas, put them in order (organize them) and enact these thoughts back to the environment in order to make their environments more logical overall.  And this is why I took this part out of the reading and enjoyed it the most – order out of chaos.  It seems it is a human need to create, control, project their feelings, and try to make sense of their environment, always, even if there really is no connection. When people are faced with ambiguity and uncertainty “people search for meaning” and “settle for plausibility then move on” (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Connecting abstract thoughts to concrete actions, creating an environment, and looking back in retrospect is the cornerstone of sensemaking.  For instance, when I ran my business I would often think, plan, do, and look back at the decisions I made and altered what I needed to in order to control my environment.  However, I learned very fast that in my industry if my decisions did not work out as planned that it was mainly due to outside influences such as demand and supply; conversely, if my internal plans did work, it was because they were in harmony with the external environment.  If the demand did not run high or low and remained stable, then my actions would have been to do nothing; it was because of the flux in demand and supply that started a reaction in my business to alter prices and to order more or less goods in a period.  The decisions I did make created the environment that produced more profit. So perhaps Weick is correct, perhaps I made the decisions, thereby creating the environment and found myself inside my own creation.

References:

Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). Organization-Environment Relations.A primer on organizational behavior (7th ed., pp. 252, 274). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Weick, K.E. (2001). In Weick, K.E. (ed.), Making Sense of the Organization:179-206, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Referenceforbusiness.com. (2012). Organization Theory - Open-systems theory, Basic organizational characteristics, Organizational theory in the 1980s and 1990s. Reference For Business - Encyclopedia of Small Business, Business Biographies, Business Plans, and Encyclopedia of American Industries. Retrieved August 28, 2012, from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Op-Qu/Organization-Theory.html.

Uhv.com. (2010). Chapter 3 Summary. University of Houston - Victoria: Academic Web. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://www2.uhv.edu/chapao/MGT3311/outlines/chp3.htm 

Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. (4 ed., Vol. 16, pp. 409-421). Organization Science

Management vs Leadership

I feel that  both management and leadership are different in a literal sense and by definition although they can both exist simultaneously.  As an example, a manager is appointed or hired to a position but could also be a leader (that is to say that leadership is just one facet of management) and, conversely, a leader may be a leader with or without holding the title of manager.  Also, I feel that both terms are in the title of this class because leading is becoming more and more popular in management.  According to David K. Williams, a contributing writer for Forbes magazine online, "What if a company simply dispensed with traditional managers? What if every employee had the opportunity and potential to lead? What if everyone was given the freedom to consider “Am I doing the right things?” instead of just “Am I doing things ‘right’?”".  This is important because companies of the future may consider dispensing formal management and focus more on direct leadership due to the distinction leadership holds for employees (Williams, 2012).  Perhaps this idea from David K. Williams has a lot of merit and is directly linked to the Hypercaninophobia complex (aka top-dog fear) which is “fear caused in superiors when an inferior demonstrates strong leadership potential” (Peter & Hull, 1969).   It does make logical sense that if a manager is also a leader, then the subordinates will follow the manager instead of a leader born from a group. 

There is a fundamental difference between the two terms; however many people use the terms interchangeably both correctly and well as incorrectly.  The definitions are not confusing but the practical applications can be and this is why the terms are used interchangeably - sometimes justified, and sometimes not so much.  The term management is defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "the conducting or supervising of something (such as a business)", and the term leadership is defined by the same source as the "capacity to lead".  So does this mean that anyone who is a manager is automatically also a leader or has the capacity to lead?  The answer is no, and this is because not every manager has this capacity, and not every leader has the title of manager.  Furthermore not every manager wants the distinction of being a leader.  The only time a person is justified in using the terms interchangeably is when the definition of the term(s) fit(s) the situation correctly.  As an example I would like to point out that a leader such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not hold a management position; and I have personally had managers in fast food environments that just controlled situations, but they never gave any type of advice or other direction to employees other than what was mandated by the franchise.  Managers are also not always required by an organization to be a leader due to the structure of the organization, so leadership can also be considered an asset that a manager holds instead of a necessity.  Therefore, the terms can only be used interchangeably when a person holds the title of manager and also has the capacity as well as the objective to lead.   Management and (or) leadership is often contingent upon the structure and overall purpose of the organization.   

My Philosophy on Management and Leadership: 

In management, managers do things according to policy, company rules, and generally by the book.  Managers form teams, control situations, organize meetings, staff employees, and plan various activities that are all aimed at reaching the overall goal of the company.   Managers are viewed by employees as being authoritative - a person that the employees must directly obey and carefully listen to whether or not they actually want to.   A manager is hired to a specific position and therefore a manager is more of a title rather than a label.   I feel that managers think critically about situations and try to stay within the parameters of company guidelines.   To me, managing a situation means getting into chaos and straightening up a mess in order to meet a goal or set of goals and a manager is a ruling authority whereas a leader is someone to follow willingly due to their views, characteristics, enthusiasm, and passion.

In leadership, leaders think more radically than managers; they challenge norms, unite people to follow, use emotions to excite followers, and set examples through their leadership.   Leaders are normally not bound entirely by organizational rules or structure and understand when, as well as how, to challenge the status quo.   Leaders may not have the expertise of a company or organization like that of managers, but are able to gain more employee loyalty.  Loyalty, I feel, is a key difference between a leader and a manager.  People in general tend to feel more loyal to a leader than to a manager and I feel this is because they are not ordered to follow a leader; people actually want to follow a leader due to the leader’s message, fervor, and direction.  

Leaders are able to establish loyalty through trust building and by creating enthusiasm in their followers.    My favorite example of a great leader is Queen Elizabeth I – she was not called the “manager of England”, and I believe this is a good way to show the difference between the two terms (perspective).    To me, leading is setting an example by actions, through emotions, and creating trust and loyalty among followers.  If I want to teach my children about science, I show them how fun science can be and tell them stories of how science has changed my life and how it is beneficial to them; if I want to lead a group in class, I show the members that I have the capacity to contribute to the group and that their ideas and opinions are extremely important to the success of the group; if I want to lead my employees I take action, treat them with respect, get to know them on a personal level, trust them as I want to be trusted, and lead by example.  As a note, in all of these situations, proper and well-timed feedback is always very important as a leader and a manager. 

There certainly is a distinction between the terms management and leadership; both terms can apply to a person if the standards mentioned above for both terms are present.

Younger Years - Noticing the Differences:

As a teenager I worked at McDonalds for 2 years.  During this time I was strictly managed and not led.  I knew what I had to do, my goals for the day, and how to carry out these goals.  My managers rarely spoke to me unless they had to give e some type of directions or orders for work.  Later, I decided to open my own business and through much trial and error I learned that managing people in this same fashion under a completely different business structure was simply not going to work.   I was only doing what I knew at the time, and was managing people, not leading a group.  I learned promptly that different people respond to different incentives in very different ways.  Being managed before at McDonalds taught me that things needed to be done in order to be profitable but it did not teach me that leading people motivates them to work harder and to be loyal to the company.  This is probably why McDonalds has an incredibly high turnover rate – as there is not much loyalty there due to the management style.   For my business I needed people who had general and specific knowledge, who enjoyed coming into work, and who were loyal to my company.  It was because of the uneager response of my 15 employees that I knew I would have to be both a manager as well as a leader.  I decided I needed lessons on leadership and did not have time to go back to college to learn these lessons, yet.   So I purchased books upon books just to learn leadership ability.  Books are great, but nothing teaches leadership like that of a true leader.   I looked in various places, sought out mentors, and the evolution of my thoughts on leadership became more and more of what not to do as a leader than what to do.  But that is also good, for knowing ‘what not to do’ relinquishes the possibility of errors when leading in the future. 

My thoughts of leadership at this point were focused on motivating other people.  I needed my employees to want to come to work and I wanted to see smiles.   My thoughts of leadership were quiet antiquated too; for instance during this time I truly believed that people were either born leaders or born followers and that they could never change their status.  After more trial and error and going at this leadership all wrong, I found out one day that leadership truly comes not through words but through actions.  I could talk all day to my employees but it was about as well received as a preacher spilling out words on Sunday to kids who simply thought they were going to church for fun due to parental lies.   It was the day when my company received a huge order from a very high-class institution.  The order was 200 crib sets packaged and delivered within 24 hours.  We were short handed because seven employees decided to leave when we got the huge order in.  I told my other employees thank you for staying, and I immediately began to work.  Without much instruction from me, my other employees also immediately began to work.  But then a very interesting thing happened – they were laughing, having fun, and one of them said “we can get this done in no time” and the other employees agreed.  It was then that I realized only when there was a challenging goal and I rolled up my sleeves to join them, that they were the most eager.   I was no longer just a manager preaching orders from my soapbox, but rather I was leading them by my actions.  When I took action with a positive attitude, there was a clear domino effect in the employees.  We got the order finished with 4 hours to spare, and we all went out to celebrate on my dime.  After that day, things went very well in the office; my employees started asking my advice with everything from work to personal life situations.  The seven employees who showed no loyalty were fired, and the other employees were given a raise due to the new availability of funds from the firings.   My employees trusted me and were loyal to me based on my actions.  This was a very important milestone for me.

More lessons came throughout the years, but my business closed in 2009 due to economic hardship.  I decided then to go back to school and I have learned so very much from Southeast Missouri State University regarding leadership and management – and surprisingly it has been mostly from the way the classes are taught, what the professor(s) expect from students, how well professors communicate, and then the actual material of the classes in this order.   In one class, for instance, the professor laid out the syllabus and wrote an email which said “you can do the assignments as you wish.  The due dates are posted.”  I emailed the professor 4 times during the 16-week course, only once was I responded to with “that information is in the syllabus.”   This professor certainly managed the course well through a very organized syllabus, but there was no leadership, and quite frankly I did not even want to take the course anymore because of the lack of enthusiasm I felt for it.  If the professor wasn’t excited about teaching it, why should I be excited to learn it?  Conversely, the class I took on leadership through SEMO by Dr. Erin Fluegge was amazing.  She was such an active part in that class, she made the class a lot of fun, and I got the feeling that she was very happy to teach her students.  She managed and led her class very well – all emails were immediately responded to and in such a positive way.  These differences between classes show only a small picture of management and leadership, or the lack thereof.  Outside of the classroom these principles are the same and I have learned that some people prefer to just manage and show no passion, but others are full of passion and have the capacity to lead.   My perspective on both leadership and management has evolved greatly throughout the years.  This evolution has taken place mainly due to trial and error, through formal studies, and through not-so-formal studies in what not to do as a leader.  I am excited and happy to say that my perspective still has room to grow, and continually does so through more education on leadership and management. 

References:

Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary (10. ed.). (1999). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster.

Peter, L. J., & Hull, R. (1969). Followers & Leaders. The Peter Principle, (p. 171). New York: W. Morrow.

Williams, D. K. (2012, July 5). No More Managers. Everyone Leads - Forbes. Information for the World's Business Leaders - Forbes.com. Retrieved August 22, 2012, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkwilliams/2012/07/05/no-more-managers-everyone-leads/