Professionalism 101:Optimal PerformanceWithin the WorkOrganization

Professionalism 101:Optimal PerformanceWithin the Work Organization

by

Dennis J. Heinrich

Copyright © 2011 Dennis J. HeinrichAll rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.

MOTHERwerxP.O. Box 4011

Davenport, Iowa 52808

ISBN:978-0-9820238-1-5 Library of Congress Control Number:2011901207 Notice of Liability. The information in this book is distributed on an “as is” basis without warranty. While every

precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, neither the author nor MOTHERwerx shall have any liability to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information contained in this book. If source information has been inadvertently overlooked, the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.

Table of Contents

Section Topic Title Page

Introduction 1

Beginnings

1. We only do cool 32. The high cost

of adequacy29

3. Professionalism:It's not what we thought

43

4. Trust & Professionalism 51

Groundwork

5. Let's get humble 616. Work

organizations as complex systems

69

7. The changing nature of work

81

8. Leadership 919. Homo sapiens

101

Professionalism101

10.Professionalism101:Qualified

111

11.Professionalism101:Quantified

123

12.Professionalism101:Trust Building

153

Conclusion13. Let's light

this candle213

1

introduction

It is a time before smoke detectors, a time when breathing apparatus is considered optional in fighting fires, a time when firefighters are people who fought forest fires and city fire departments are staffed by a male population and called firemen. It is my first day as a “probie” (probationary fireman). For my first year, I will

be a probie. During this year, the department may release or fire me without explanation. The fire service requires a strong personality-occupation-organization “fit.” It is a unique culture with a rich tradition that most people cannot understand. It defines you and good firemen define what it means to be a fireman. It may be that firemen live and work closely with each other twenty-four hours a day, experience the best and the worst that happen to people, and share each other’s toils. Firemen are noted for their honesty and frankness, true authenticity. So much so, that you pray you don’t have an ugly kid. The locus of the firehouse is the sprawling kitchen table. It is where they eat, study, tell stories, and laugh together. It is here where their culture and camaraderie is most evident. They are brothers not by blood but by choice. It is based on trust in each other. Their lives depend on it. It would not be until later that I would realize the profound effect this day would have not only on my work life but also my personal life. I am assigned to the Chief of Training to assist him in preparing for my cohort’s training academy in the following weeks.

Earlier this day, I was issued a long neoprene fire coat, a fire helmet, heavy three-quarter rubber fire boots that extend up my entire leg, spanner wrenches, a hose rope tool, and lightweight cotton tic mitts or gloves. I had my equipment but I felt a level of uncertainty in what is expected of me. I am highly confident in my physical abilities to do the job of a fireman. I have spent the last two years working in construction and playing for the city rugby club on the weekends. I am in the best shape of my life as a twenty-six year old man. I am six feet tall, two hundred and twenty pounds of muscle with a thirty-inch waist and I can run forever. The Training Chief directs me to “Jump a rig” if a general fire alarm (structure fire) is sounded.

Late in the morning, the alarm klaxon sounds for a structure fire. I slide down the tall brass pole to the main floor and put on my gear. I jump into one of the rear-facing seats of a fire engine. The fire officer leans back and tells me to stay with him and help with the hose. As we leave the firehouse and turn the corner, I see the other fire engine and long fire truck pull out of the station. Amid the wailing siren, the air horn echoes loudly against the tall downtown buildings and cars move to the side. The following engine and truck weave between the traffic and I see the tiller man steering the rear of the long ladder truck move his steering wheel feverishly. My heart is jacked as adrenaline surges through my body. We arrive at a two and a half-story old and worn Italianate house from the late 1800’s. Heavy thick smoke comes from underneath the eaves of the house. The officer pulls the large nozzle and 150-foot ribbon of 1 ½” hose from the side of the engine and moves toward the house. The hose falls in a heap in the front yard and I attempt to move it around as I carry a fire ax. As I move toward the house, the fire engineer charges the hose with water and the ribbon becomes a long, hard single strand of spaghetti. The officer opens the nozzle and lets out the air until water flows from it. He shuts it down and enters the house. I follow closely behind him. We ascend the stairs together until he calls for me to “Pull more hose.” I sit backwards on the stairs and use both my hands to pull the heavy water-filled hose from the front yard. When I turn to climb the stairs, he has disappeared into heavy, deep, black smoke. I crawl up into the smoke following the hose and I can’t even see my hands. I feel the heat from the fire and the skin on my ears begin to blister. I can hear the crackle of burning wood ahead. I crouch even lower and inch my way along the hose. The heavy, acrid smoke enters my lungs and I begin to cough. I think to myself, “Can’t he feel the heat, can he see in this deep blackness, can he breathe in this thick smoke?” No one told me it was going to be this hot, that I would not be able to see or to breathe. I inch farther along the hose and I can hear water bang against the furniture farther down the hose. A fireman crawls into me from behind and proceeds to crawl over the top me. And then another. He tells me to “Get to the side and suck some carpet” as he drags a long pole against me. I mindlessly obey. I move to the side and lay flat to the ground as I try to get some air. I bury my face deep into the carpet and I breathe in the musty odor of the tall shag carpet. More noise follows from ahead. I can hear glass break and a lot of movement. The heat recedes and the smoke becomes lighter in color. I crawl toward the room where the other firemen are. As the smoke begins to clear, the figures of several firemen standing and moving in the room appear. A fireman uses a pike pole with hook to pull down the lath ceiling while the other fireman douses

2

the embers with water from the hose. Others move furniture. I notice that they have two lines of black sooted snot running from their nostrils, as do I. I hear one of the men ask, “Where’s the new guy.” A fireman with a cigarette dangling from his lips turns toward me and grins. “He’s right here” comes the answer. I am a fine sight. I am the fine specimen of a man crouching in the corner while the others take care of business. This all takes place within the span of a few minutes. I say to myself, “These guys are really, really, NO really good. Together they are spectacular.” I wanted to be just like them. Thus, I began my never-ending, deliberate practice of becoming a good fireman.

That was thirty years ago and I have since retired from the fire service. My inquiry began over fifteen years ago while I was still a fireman as an effort to understand and to make sense of how exceptional individual performance can lead to optimal performance within a work organization. I grew up during the 1950’s and 60’s an era of conformity, questioning, and individualism. It was a period, post World War II, greatly influenced by Jack Kerouac and the “beat generation;” a search for humility and righteousness developed from the beatitudes. My inquiry is a search for that ancient and elusive sweet spot that exists between the “I” or self-interest and the “we” or group-interest: individual rights tempered by responsibility to the whole. It was not until a four-year stint as a PhD candidate at a large research university, that my inquiry would reach fruition. This book is the fruit of my inquiry. It is not intended to be the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, but to serve as guideposts or waypoints for the practitioner, for every person at every level of the organization that strives to become exceptional in his or her work. The book is a combination of writings, ideas, and concepts of esteemed and highly cited academics along with original research conducted while as a PhD candidate and experiences gleaned from being a fireman for 24 years, a combat military man for 30 years, a substitute high school teacher, a university instructor/researcher, and a small business owner.

The book is written in a style that affords greater accessibility and ease to every person. The tedious prose has been reduced and information is depicted graphically in an effort to make the abstract more concrete and the complicated, less complicated. Each topic begins with an introductory overview. It is followed by a graphical spread with a question, statements that may stand on their own, definitions, and a concluding note. A sources page completes the topic. The sources page provides support and additional information to the reader and each of the footnoted references will usually contain several sources. My writing style reflects the fireman and soldier in me. I apologize at this time for any roughness that some individuals might find offensive to their delicate nature.

Work organizations may optimize organizational performance by creating work environments in which exceptional individual performance may be realized. The book is divided into three sections. Beginnings explains a philosophy, a culture, or framework of “we only do cool” that we created in the military and I transferred to several crews of the fire department of how exceptional individual performance, i.e. professionalism, leads to optimal performance within the organization. Groundwork presents several elements and concepts of the work environment in which exceptional performance exhibited as professionalism may exist and thrive. Professionalism101 is a re-definition and generalized model of professionalism across all occupations. It is a model based on trust.

We, as humans, are confronted by uncertainties and risk in our work lives. We attempt to create order and make sense of what confronts us to lessen this uncertainty and risk. The goal of this book is two-fold. First, for individuals, the development of the commitment, knowledge, skills, and abilities required for exceptional performance. It is my hope that this book will invigorate, refuel, and help individuals make sense, lessen the uncertainty, gain a greater understanding, and experience greater meaning and pride from their work. secondly, for groups and organizations, the development of a mature constructive culture of talented colleagues where optimal performance is realized.

WARNING! This book is not for everyone. For those enamored with adequacy, those who are complacent and reveling in mediocrity, those seeking the status quo, and for the simply stupid (Topic 1), place the book down and step away. No, better yet, hide the book and run away. You will not like this book!

3

“we only do cool”

Early in the 1990’s, the military trained its service members in Total Quality Management (TQM) whose goal is the “transformation of the style of American management.”1 The purpose of this change in organizational management was to increase productivity and value (output) by increasing the quality of the interdependent

systems (inputs) of people and machines through continuous process improvement (CPI).2 CPI improves the systems. It is not simply putting out fi res.3 My military unit’s goal would be to improve our inputs: the quality of our people and the quality of our processes, the intangibles. My fi re department would later adopt and train their personnel in the TQM management philosophy.

Empirical studies show that TQM does produce value when TQM programs and member empowerment/involvement are tightly integrated together. It’s the integration of the “soft” systems with the “hard” systems.4 Failures of TQM are often attributed to be at the leadership levels in their efforts to create an organizational environment or culture in which TQM processes can fl ourish.5 Some leaders refuse to surrender their perceived power and control.

My reserve military unit was in the Close Air Support business. While being Air Force we were always located with Army combat units. Simply put, we specialized and orchestrated “putting the right bombs on the bad guys at the right time.” It was not rocket science but “controlled rocket science.” The unit was a high reliability organization in a high velocity environment where calm periods of slack are punctuated by very high levels of action. Much like the fi re service and hospital emergency rooms, time is measured in minutes.6 They don’t have the luxury of trial and error. They cannot afford to get it wrong.7 You get it wrong and good people die. Hi-speed, high energy, highly trained men staffed our operations division. They ranged in age from twenty year olds to men in their fi fties. I referred to them as “triple volunteers”: volunteer for military service, volunteer for a combat role, and when needed, volunteer for airborne, special forces, and special operations forces. Our division had daunting annual requirements to fulfi ll. Whereas, our active duty counterparts had 365 days, our citizen soldiers had a maximum of 39 days in which to complete the same requirements. Individual requirements consisted of: “Mission Ready” currency training and evaluation or “check ride”, ancillary training conducted by the group, personal administrative tasks to complete, and individual medical requirements. Crew requirements consisted of initial and recurring training for their teams. Unit requirements consisted of conducting four two-day exercises per year and supplying individuals and teams to augment live Army exercises throughout the world.

Combat situations are dynamic. Individuals are required to adapt and improvise by making adjustments in this type of environment.8 Much like Miles Davis and the creation of the Kind of Blue album, without question the most infl uential and largest selling jazz album of all time, the jazz greats performing as an ensemble were pushed to the limits of improvisation but also confi ned within those limits. It was a less is more, Zen-like approach of disciplined freedom; fi ne tuning without being rigid.9 Our task was to create an organizational environment or culture of trust and values of disciplined freedom. It was essential that this “system” be a highly effective and highly effi cient framework within the Total Quality Management philosophy. What we needed were broad boundaries for exceptional individual action.

Two changes in military philosophy assisted us in creating these broad boundaries. The fi rst was the change from a “command and control” philosophy to a “centralized command (strategy/goals at upper echelons) and decentralized control (tactical control at the combat unit level)” philosophy. The second change came from foresighted military planners in the issuance of a joint forces regulation for tactics, techniques, and procedures for close air support that acted as a general operating guide. These two changes would give us the broad boundaries for the responsibility and accountability of individual action in a dynamic combat environment. I should say at this point that we had no idea what we were doing but we were doing our very best in constructing a system that would be highly effective and highly effi cient. Our mission to serve and to mesh with the tactical combat Army units required us to become more similar than dissimilar in our philosophy. Nothing was off the table; everything was up for debate. It developed over a number of years and became a type of agile development.

4

We had our values and in retrospect, we would ground our framework in several basic assumptions.

Assumption 1: As the foundation for the framework, the organization is a civil society. Individuals are voluntary and equal members or citizens, not subjects, of the organization afforded equal rights and responsibilities. Civility necessitates dignity, decency, and respect. Members interact within organizations as “whole persons” subject to societal pressures and not simply in their formal roles.10 They display not only their work lives but also their personal lives. Individuals are entitled to rights but also have collective responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities are mutually supportive. Members are active participants within the organization. Individuals possess unique skill sets. Individuals have the rights of opportunity and access to provide their opinion and make meaningful contributions for the collective action of the organization. Constructive deliberation, respectful disagreement and dissent are encouraged. Individuals have the responsibility to the organization to be trustful in their actions.11 What we were doing was out of the ordinary. The military accords rank as status. Rank became the acknowledgement of simply different individual roles and responsibilities. This served as a type of cooptation.

Assumption 2: As the goal for the framework, members share a strong obligation and responsibility to the common good. The common or collective good are those goods that serve us all. The collective good serves to fulfill our organization’s mission to provide close air support expectations and demands of Army elements in combat environments.12 It is to subordinate lesser individual goals for greater common goals. It is the principle of utility; the greatest good for the greatest number of people.13 It gave us a sense of common purpose, a goal to strive for in all we do.

Assumption 3: Support for the attainment of our goal, the common good, will rest on military bearing/professional conduct and leadership at all levels. Military bearing is the discipline of professional ethics and professional competence (i.e. professionalism) displayed by individuals.14 Leadership is the “development of character and competence to achieve excellence” in the Army leadership framework.15 It is the development of the right values, the right attributes, the right skills, and the right actions. Leadership would occur at all levels: at the supervisory level, at the individual level (self-leadership), and also at the peer level (peer-leadership).

Assumption 4: Organizational members desire to do a good job; to perform well. Trust in each other would occur when members met the following criteria: • possess the right commitment through strong identification with their role, the organization, and the mission,• possess the right knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform their job well,• and act rightfully through deliberate practice, willful action, and exerting their best effort.

We developed a constructive culture of achievement, self-actualization, humanistic encouragement, and affiliative norms. Outcomes would be measured at the individual level, the group level, and the organizational level.16 It would become a type of collective conscience.

The assumptions we made would result in the internalization of our norms and enforced through social pressure. An interesting development occurred as we constructed our framework. Individuals began to say, “That’s cool” as agreement and affirmation of excellence or to say, “That’s stupid.” There were no mediocre gray areas, only cool or stupid. It evolved into a constructive and, at times, robust discussion of “How do we make it cool?” What can we agree upon that we believe is right with our values and just for all? Cool engendered our elements of trust. Was it the right commitment? Was it the right knowledge, skills, and abilities? Was it the right action? This became our 3-way litmus test, a type of regulatory governance. Stupid was the removal or reduction of any one of these elements of trust. Individual expectations became more clear and “We only do cool” became our mantra. As a caveat, some of the younger men added, “Chicks dig us, guys think we’re cool.” So be it, we’ll go with it. The idea of “cool” worked well for me personally as I had a great affinity for jazz and Miles Davis, who epitomized “cool” in the 1950’s. This provided us with a flexible and adaptable vigilant monitoring device or feedback loop of our environment and the individuals within that environment.17 Individual performance became fully transparent. What we were doing was out there for all our peers to see, to comment, to deliberate, and to arrive at what we believed to be cool. It seemed that everyone wanted to cram his big foot into that small Cinderella slipper of cool (trustworthiness). Doing cool transcended the self. It could not be based on individual egocentrism, self-interest, personal motives, or

5

opportunism. That would become too obvious and no one wanted to be caught being stupid (untrustworthy). “We only do cool” was our lodestar, a bright star that guided and showed us the way.

Doing cool was not easy at first. Our challenges were great and required great focus and effort from each individual. While the broad boundaries pushed us to our limits of performance, they also created a limit in which to act. They acted in a push-pull effect. Individuals had to “man up”, raise the bar, step it up a notch, and bring their A-game all the time. No one could sit it out. They were always in the game and always had the ball. High standards and high expectations were being called for. Being adequate wasn’t good enough to do cool. They had to perform exceptionally well. It was action without panic and mistakes were minimal. Social support and governance came from the framework that we created and from our peers. Individuals became fully engaged. They employed their physical, cognitive, and affective horsepower in their performance.18 This deliberate practice created a balance between our challenges and our abilities. Individuals became more confident, relaxed, and experienced greater satisfaction and enjoyment as we settled into “doing cool.” This has often been described as “flow.”19 More individuals began to exhibit the organizational citizenship behaviors of going beyond the minimum role requirements, not complaining, preventing problems from occurring, helping behaviors, and participating responsibly.20

The military uses maintenance codes to depict the operational status of its equipment to perform the mission. Can it do what is required of it? Code 1 refers to equipment that is fully capable of performing the operational mission, “mission ready.” Code 2 refers to equipment with limited capability to perform the operational mission, “needs some work.” Code 3 refers to equipment that is incapable of performing the operational mission, “hard broke.” We used these codes for our people. Since we were creating something new, everyone started at Code 2 and needed some work to be fully capable to “do cool.” Having this passion for excellence became very contagious, a virtuous snowball effect. Everyone wanted to do cool. One self-interested individual chose not to ride the tail of this comet, adapt to our framework, and do cool. His commitment, knowledge, skills, and abilities were suspect. His actions demonstrated self-interest. We had no confidence in him to perform the job. The negative consequences of his untrustworthy behavior was that he was not selected for re-enlistment and was discharged from the unit. Some individuals just don’t get it and refuse to surrender their ego. When a weak personality-occupation-organization fit exists, the toxic runts at any organizational level that don’t measure up need to be culled from the organization. Sometimes, individuals are simply “hard broke” with very little to salvage. Instead of being an investment or asset, they become a cost or liability. In work organizations, individuals are required to add value, to be an asset. If they don’t add value they subtract value and become a liability.

Given all that, our third and fourth assumptions concerning professionalism and our elements of trust still exist as a somewhat fuzzy, difficult to measure construct in our model. Professionalism 101 addresses and clears up this fuzziness by providing specific measures for individual trust and professionalism in the work organization.

DEFINITIONS:

Values of:

Structures of self-governance:

Practices of participation:

1 individuality: freedom to participate, equality, and security2 community: people-centered commitment3 moral reciprocity: individual to organization and organization to individual

1 decision-making: deciding among options involving opportunity and risk2 judgment: fairly resolving conflict and aligning individual beliefs with commitment to the organization3 execution: turning decisions and judgments into actions

* practice of ensures the right people are involved1 engagement2 networks of relationships3 rotation: to rule and to be ruled

* practice of ensures that decisions are made fairly4 deliberation5 transparency6 closure

* practice of recognizes that actions have consequences

7 merit8 accountability9 challenge

* practice of ensures that the appropriate people take responsibility

0 jurisdiction

access

process

consequence

jurisdiction

* willingness to voluntarily sacrifice for the common good

* openness to embrace talent and ideas

* responsive accountable leadership

* innovation to increase capacity for new ideas and building on advances

* seamlessly combining new thinking with open discussion and bold action

* entrpreneurial spirit using creative insight and energy to exploit opportunities

* resilience by refusing to be discouraged

* agility by easily adapting to dynamic circumstances

politeia

6

• collective conscience: important beliefs and sentiments common to members; standards and behavior codes for expectations and obligations that bind one to another 53

• collectivism: occurs when the demands and interests of the group take precedence over desires and needs of individuals 54

• cooperation: orientation of behavior with respect to group goals and objectives; a willingness of individuals to contribute efforts by surrendering control of personal conduct; a “sticking together” 55

What does it mean to “only do cool?”

Total productivity = Output quality + quantity

Input quality + quantity(Derivation 21)

Cool is the strong focus on inputs.

Cool is building on the rock-solid foundation of a civil society.

(Adaptation 22)

7

• cooptation: the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy determining structure of an organization through contribution and participation as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence 56

• deliberate practice: a type of well-structured practice that is focused, programmatic, carried out over extended periods of time, guided by conscious performance monitoring, evaluated by analysis of level of expertise reached, identifi cation of errors, and procedures directed at eliminating errors 57

• distributive justice: fairness of a society’s distribution of goods and opportunities; fair distribution 58

Cool is the possession of a robust integrity to do what is right and just.26

“The essential freedom of the individual has been the driving force behind democracy down the ages, but it is freedom combined with commitment.” 24

* citizenship is to have responsibilities as well as rights ...the payoff is shared commitment and mutual trust* a common citizenship binds diverse people together in a blend of rights and

obligations* it is the acceptance of conformity as a requirement of belonging that makes

it possible for an individualistic people to work together in social harmony* organizations cannot demand commitment, only hope for it* organizations as well as individuals have to earn the right to be trusted 25

* A civil society is committed to individuality and to community. 23

8

• fi delity: faithfulness to one’s duty 59

• individualism: the condition in which personal interests are accorded greater importance than are the needs of the group 60

• integrity: truthfulness and sincerity, clear understanding and commitment; authenticity 61

• interactional justice: the quality of interpersonal treatment; fair treatment 62

• involvement: full participation and commitment through practices that move information, knowledge, power, and rewards downward in organizations 63

1. Committed leadership A near-evangelical, unwavering, long-term commitment by top managers to the philosophy

2. Adoption and communication of TQM Using tools like the mission statement, and themes or slogans

3. Closer customer relationships

Determining customers (inside and outside the firm) requirements, then meeting those requirements no matter what it takes

4. Closer supplier relationships

Working closely and cooperatively with suppliers, ensuring they provide inputs that conform to customer’s end-use requirements

5. Benchmarking Researching and observing best competitive practices6. Increased training Usually includes TQM principles, team skills, and problem-solving7. Open organization Lean staff, empowered work teams, open horizontal

communications, and a relaxation of traditional hierarchy8. Employee empowerment Increased employee involvement in design and planning, and

greater autonomy in decision-making9. Zero-defects mentality A system in place to spot defects as they occur, rather than

through inspection and rework10. Flexible manufacturing Can include just-in-time inventory, cellular manufacturing, design

for manufacturability, statistical process control, and design of experiments (applicable only to manufacturers)

11. Process Improvement Reduced waste and cycle times in all areas through cross-departmental process analysis

12. Measurement Goal-orientation and zeal for data, with constant performance measurement, often using statistical methods

* Commonalities of the Deming, Juran, Crosby, and Baldridge TQM models.27

Cool is tightly integrating the “soft” systems with the “hard” systems.

9

• norms: actions regarded as proper or correct, improper or incorrect, purposely generated and enforced through sanctions 64

• organizational citizenship behavior: individual behavior that is discretionary, a personal choice, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the effi cient functioning of the organization 65

• politeia: Athenian democratic concept of citizenship; a set of beliefs and a set of behaviors that reinforced the integration of indi-vidual values with community values 66

• procedural justice: fairness of the rules under which a society operates and disputes are settled; fair procedures 67

1 Preoccupation with failure2 Reluctance to simplify3 Sensitivity to operations4 Commitment to resilience5 Deference to expertise

* Hallmarks of high reliability.

Cool is designing for high reliability to manage the unexpected.

People who maintain complex sets of expectations, complicated mental models of how events unfold, experience fewer unexpected events and when they do occur, these complex models enable people to resolve the anomalies earlier. 28

10

• substantive justice: the institutional order of society as a whole and its justice or fairness; fair system 68

• totem: a symbol that expresses and distinguishes a particular group from others; the visible mark of personality that embodies everything that the group holds sacred 69

• volition: making choices and decisions, taking responsibility, initiating and inhibiting behavior, and making plans of action and carry-ing out those plans; voluntary willful action and self-regulation 70

Cool is the creation of a group culture of shared expectations of right behavior.29

Organizational Culture defined:

a) a pattern of shared basic assumptions

b) invented, discovered, or developed by a given group,

c) as it learns to cope and solve its problems of external adaptation and internal integration,

d) that have worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore

e) to be taught to new members as the

f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems

11

Cool is concentrating on each dimension of organizational culture.30

Leadership The role of leaders in directing an organization, maintaining its culture, and serving as role models

Structure The degree to which the organizational structure limits the actions of members, looking at the influence of policies and procedures on member behaviors and the concentration of power in the organization

Innovation The organization’s risk preference: the willingness of the organization to take risks and the encouragement it shows for innovation and creativity

Job Performance The degree to which the organization emphasizes task performance – the extent of task orientation and whether performance is rewarded

Planning The extent to which the organization has clear goals, has plans to meet those goals, and strives to follow those plans

Communication The free sharing of information among all levels within the organization where possible, the direction it takes (bottom up, top down), and the importance of rumor in communication

Environment The extent to which the organization is responsive to the needs of its clients and the extent to which it is influenced by and influences the actions of similar organizations

Humanistic Workplace The extent to which the organization respects and cares for individuals; represents the people end of the task-versus-people dichotomy

Development of the Individual

The extent to which the organization expends sufficient effort in providing opportunities for members to develop their skills and rewards development with career advancement and challenging work

Socialization on Entry The time new members take to settle in, the degree to which employees feel they understand the organization, the extent of formalization, and the effectiveness of the socialization process

12

Cool is building a strong constructive culture with high positive outcomes.

(Adaptation 31)

13

Constructive Cultures

1 Achievement norms Members are expected to set challenging but realistic goals, establish plans to reach those goals, and pursue them with enthusiasm

2 Self-Actualizing norms

Members are expected to enjoy their work, develop themselves, and take on new and interesting tasks

3 Humanistic-Encouraging norms

Members are expected to be supportive, constructive, and open to influence in their dealings with one another

4 Affiliative norms Members are expected to be friendly, cooperative, and sensitive to the satisfaction of their work group

Passive-Defensive Cultures

1 Approval norms Members are expected to agree with, gain the approval of, and be liked by others

2 Conventional norms Members are expected to conform, follow the rules, and make a good impression

3 Dependent norms Members are expected to do what they’re told and clear all decisions with superiors

4 Avoidance norms Members are expected to shift responsibilities to others and avoid any possibility of being blamed for a problem

Aggressive-Defensive Cultures

1 Oppositional norms Members are expected to be critical, oppose the ideas of others, and make safe (but ineffectual) decisions

2 Power norms Members are expected to take charge, control subordinates, and yield to the demands of superiors

3 Competitive norms Members are expected to operate in a “win-lose” framework, outperform others, and work against (rather than with) their peers

4 Perfectionistic norms

Members are expected to appear competent, keep track of everything, and work long hours to attain narrowly-defined objectives

Orga

nizat

ional

Cultu

re T

ypes

- N

orms

32

14

Cool is establishing broad boundaries for individual behavior in a loose-tight symbiosis.33

“Maybe he (Miles) saw something in my playing that he hoped would grow...” 34

John Coltrane

“ But you write something and then guys play off it and take it someplace else through their creativity and imagination, and you just miss where you thought you were going to go...” 34

Miles Davis

“ Group improvisation is a further challenge. Aside from the weighty technical problem of collective coherent thinking, there is the very human, even social need for sympathy from all members to bend for the common result...” 35

Bill Evans (line-up notes for the making of Kind of Blue with Miles Davis)

* push to the limits of the boundaries

* pull back within the boundaries

15

“ We only do cool” as a totem, our DNA.

A workstyle of trust, personal character, and volition.

COMMON GOODRIGHT (VIRTUS) JUST (IUSTUS)

CIVIL SOCIETYCITIZEN MEMBERS

* Supervisory Leadership

* Self-Leadership

* Peer-Leadership

Professionalism 101 addresses professionalism and the elements of trust in a generalized model.

Right commitment

Right knowledge, skills,

and abilities

Right action

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

LIS

M

* Military Bearing

* Professional Conduct

* Fidelity

LE

AD

ER

SH

IP

“���� d� co��”

DEFINITIONS:

16

• altruistic punishment: individuals punish others, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material good 71

• anomie: a state of mind in which the individual’s sense of social cohesion, his morale is broken 72

• cooperate: a conscious, willful, deliberate, and purposeful contribution of personal effort to the completion of interdependent jobs 73

• free-rider: an individual who fails to participate in collectively profi table activities in the absence of coercion or individual incentives; belief that they will receive goods by letting others do the work, receive benefi t without personal cost 74

So, who then are the individuals that do stupid?

In exchange relationships that require cooperation and trust...

Individuals that do stupid are normless, in a state of anomie.36

* When norms are NOT made salient, important, and obvious to individuals, individuals become deviant and detract from the utility of the common good. 37

Lack of regulatory governance

Collapse of norms ANOMIE

Indicators of anomie from the individual’s perception:1 leaders are indifferent to the individual’s needs2 little can be accomplished in an organization that is seen as basically unpredictable

and lacking order3 individual goals are receding rather than being realized4 a sense of futility5 the feeling that the individual cannot count on personal associations for social

and psychological support(Adaptation 38)

17

• greed and fear: emotive drives that infl uence individuals to defect rather than to cooperate in an active effort to maximize egoistic self-interest in the former or protect, based on the lack of trust and the sense of hopelessness, egoistic self-interest in the latter 75

• institutionalism: social processes, obligations, or actualities take on a rule-like status in thought and action 76

• isomorphism: a constraining process that forces one to resemble others that face the same set of conditions; the range of choices that are perceived as rational are limited 77

• second order free-rider: individuals that do not contribute to the disciplining of selfi sh individuals 78

Greedy and/or fearful individuals do stupid.39

When given the choice to cooperate or to defect from the common good... * Greedy individuals purposely choose to defect in the pursuit to

maximize egoistic, self-interested personal gain

* Fearful individuals purposely choose to defect as a desire to avoidexploitation, being taken advantage of, being a sucker, or being gyped

Greedy and fearful individuals are: 40

* undersocialized and

* base their decisions on the “rational economic model of man”:a person ruthlessly pursuing a calculated, maximum, personal, self-interested return

cost / benefit (high personal benefit @ low personal cost)

Defecting becomes self-defeating and the rational economic man realizes that to maximize personal self-interest, it becomes neces-sary to cooperate rather than to defect.

* With repeated exchanges, a tit-for-tat exchange strategy is the most successful 41

2 key requisites for cooperation:

1 reciprocity

2 future exchanges

18

• sensemaking: process of placing items into frameworks, comprehending, redressing surprise, constructing meaning, interacting in pursuit of mutual understanding, and patterning 79

• shirking: an individual’s tendency to supply less effort through lack of monitoring self-interest, or opportunism 80

• social loafer: an individual that reduces one’s effort when working collectively by hiding in the crowd 81

• stern-judging: implacable, infl exible punishment and prompt forgiving 82

• tit-for-tat: the strategy of starting with cooperation, and thereafter doing what the other person did on the previous exchange 83

During our fi rst year of “doing cool” in the military, our squadron traveled to a training site where we would conduct Mission Ready evaluations of our operations personnel. Everyone in our division was energized and excited. Over the previous months, other divisions noticed our excitement and it became contagious. To conduct our evaluations, we required cryptographic strips of paper tape that would be loaded into an instrument and then into our radios for secure communications between radios. The person in charge of the squadron’s cryptographic codes was a maintenance supervisor in a different division. For years, we had simply requested the tapes from him, he would sign them out to us, and we would return them to him after loading the codes. Before departing to the training site, he decided to create a “new” procedure known only to him. Upon arriving at the training site, my guys requested the tapes from him. He remarked that they should have followed the “new” procedure prior to departure to the training site and he would be unable to fulfi ll their request. I was in a position of power to have some infl uence over this individual and after a well-deserved smack down, we received our tapes and we could complete our Mission Ready training. When I spoke to him about this problem, he remarked, “He wanted to teach my guys a lesson.” What????

Okay, lesson learned. There are three lessons to be learned. First, beware of stupid greedy and fearful individuals who are in positions of power that gain satisfaction and delight in purging job enjoyment from other people; they will pop your balloon. second, make sure that you garner the support of a person in a greater position of power that may override these stupid backwater pogues. lAstly, “doing cool” requires greater effort than just enjoying one’s job. It requires individuals to think of everything possible and to provide contingencies for the impact stupid people may have on the completion of your mission.

19

• utility principle: the greatest good for the greatest number of people 84

Stupid individuals are... free-riders.42

An individual enters a public transportation bus and sits down without paying. This person is riding the public bus for free while other individuals pay. As this person continues to “free ride,” other people notice him and they sit down without paying also. As more and more individuals free ride on the public bus, the bus does not gen-erate enough revenue to continue operation and shuts down. In the end, free-riders bring the system down. The moral of the story is that the pursuit of a self-interest free ride leads to a poor outcome for all. 43

The story of the free-rider is a simple story and goes something like this...

*Influences on free riding: 44

1 organizational structure2 group size3 technology4 incentives5 norms6 rules7 monitoring8 governance structures9 group membership10 social pressure11 individual ability12 task uniqueness13 task routineness14 task visibility15 task interdependence

20

Stupid individuals are... 2nd order free-riders who do not punish free-riders.45

2nd order free-rider problem: “WHO” will impose sanctions on the free rider while everyone reaps the benefits? Individuals that punish free-riders “take one for the team” so to speak as a form of altruistic punishment. 46

* punishment

* stern-judging

* cooperation

* individual involvement

* reputation

* performance

* deviance

* Altruistic punishment of defectors is a key mechanism in building and maintaining cooperation. 47

* the default position for ambivalence and complacency is the sanctioning of stupidity.

(Adaptation 48)

21

Stupid individuals shirk their responsibilities and are social loafers.49

* Measures of social loafers

(Adaptation 50)

organizational structureorganizational sizegroup sizetechnologygoal settinginvolvementpunishmentvisibility of effortwork beliefsindividual abilityequity in effortevaluation by grouptask interdependencetask attractivenesstask uniqueness task visibilitytask meaningfulness

1 Defers their responsibilities to others2 Does not do their share of the work3 Spends less time4 Puts forth less effort than other members5 Avoids performing tasks6 Leaves work which they should have

completed7 Less likely to do work when another person is

available to do it8 Takes it easy9 Defers service to others 10 Apathetic and not interested11 Distractive and disruptive12 Disconnected or not part of the group13 Poor quality of work and unprepared14 Other members do more to pick up the slack15 Poor overall team performance

22

Ignorant individuals do stupid.

Ignorance Knowledge Understanding / Sensemaking

* Problems exist when your work requires you to possess a certain level of specialized knowledge and you exhibit a level of ignorance

* Understanding or sensemaking is a whole new level of cognition and affect which becomes a source of power and talent 51

“doing cool” occurs at the group level, whereas, “being

23

stupid” occurs at the individual level

d��’� “��”

s���i�

A BIG problem arises when stupidity becomes institutionalized and isomorphic.52

Stupid individuals are

unskilled and unabled:

* individuals that do not “deliberately practice” the cognitive / social skills and abilities needed to do exceptional work

* individuals that do not exert their best effort

24

Sources:

Ahire, Sanjay L., Damodar Y. Golhar, and Matthew A. Waller. (1996). “Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs,” Decision Sciences 27(1), pp. 23-56. 63

Albanese, R. and D.D. Van Fleet. (1985). “Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding tendency,” Academy of Management Review 10, pp. 244-255. 42, 44, 74

American Psychological Association. (2007). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 75

Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 51

Argyris, Chris. (1992/1999). On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. 51

Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. 51

Ashkanasy, Neal M., Lyndelle E. Broadfoot, and Sarah Falkus. (2000). “Questionnaire measures of organizational culture.” Pp. 131-145 in Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate, edited by Neal M. Ashkanasy, Celeste P. M. Wilderom, and Mark F. Peterson. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 30

Axelrod, Robert. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York, New York: Basic Books. 41, 42, 43, 44, 75, 83

Axelrod, Robert. (1997). The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-based Models of Competition and Collaboration.Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 37

Barber, Benjamin R. (1998). A Passion for Democracy: American Essays. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 11

Barclay, Pat. (2006). “Reputational benefits for altruistic punishment,” Evolution and Human Behavior 27, pp. 325-344. 48

Barnard, Chester I. (1938/1968). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 39

Barnard, Chester I. (1981). “Cooperation.” Pp. 84-97 in The Sociology of Organizations 2nd ed., edited by Oscar Grusky and George A. Miller. New York, New York: The Free Press. 55, 73

Barney, Jay B. (1986). “Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?,” The Academy of Management Review 11(3), pp. 656-665. 29

Baumeister, Roy F., Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Dianne M. Tice. (1998). “Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(5), pp. 1252-1265. 70

Baumeister, Roy F. and Kathleen D. Vohs. (2005). “Four roots of evil.” Pp. 85-101 in The Social Psychology of Good and Evil, edited by Arthur G. Miller. New York, New York: Guilford Press. 39, 75

Beenen, Gerard and Jonathon Pinto. (2009). “Resisting organizational-level corruption: An interview with Sherron Watkins,” Academy of Management Learning & Education 8(2), pp. 275-289. 52

Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. (1992). The Good Society. New York, New York: Vintage Books. 11

Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. (1996). Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 11, 58, 67,

68

Bentham, Jeremy. (1780/1907). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. New York, New York: Clarendon Press.13, 37, 84

Black, Simon A. and Leslie J. Porter. (1996). “Identification of the critical factors of TQM,” Decision Sciences 27(1), pp. 1-21. 4

Blau, Peter M. (2005). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 39

Boyd, Robert and Peter J. Richerson. (1992). “Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizeable groups,” Ethology and Sociobiology 13(3), pp. 171-195. 47

Bromberger, Sylvain. (1988). “Rational ignorance,” Synthese 74, pp. 47-64. 51

Bruins, J. Jan, Wim B.G. Liebrand and Henk A.M. Wilke. (1989). “About the saliency of fear and greed in social dilemmas,” European Journal of Social Psychology 19, pp. 155-161. 39

Carter, Stephen L. (1998). Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy. New York, New York: Basic Books. 11

Cloward, Richard A. (1959). “Illegitimate means, anomie, and deviant behavior,” American Sociological Review 24(2): pp. 164-176. 37

Cohen, Michele and Jean-Yves Jaffray. (1980). “Rational behavior under complete ignorance,” Econometrica 48(5), pp. 1281-1299. 51

25

Coleman, James S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 40,

42, 46, 64

Collins, James C. and Jerry I. Porras. (1997). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. New York, New York: Harper Business. 30, 33

Cooke, Robert A. and Janet L. Szumal. (2000). “Using the Organizational Culture Inventory to understand the operating cultures of organizations.” Pp. 147-162 in Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate, edited by Neal M. Ashkanasy, Celeste P. M. Wilderom, and Mark F. Peterson. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 16, 31, 32

Coram, Robert. (2002). Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown,and Company. 51

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, New York: Harper & Row. 19

Dawes, Robyn M. (1980). “Social dilemmas,” Annual Review of Psychology 31, pp. 169-193. 39

Deming, W. Edwards. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study. 1, 2

DeQuervain, Dominique J.F., Urs Fishbacher, Valerie Treyer, Melanie Schellhammer, Ulrich Schnyder, Alfred Buck, and Ernst Fehr. (2004). “The neural basis of altruistic punishment,” Science 305, pp. 1254-1258. 48

DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell. (1983). “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields,” American Sociological Review 48, pp. 147-160. 76, 77

Dohrenwend, Bruce P. (1959). “Egoism, altruism, anomie, and fatalism: A conceptual analysis of Durkheim’s types,” American Sociological Review 24(4), pp. 466-473. 37

Donaldson, Lex. (1990). “The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory,” Academy of Management Review, 15(3), pp. 369-381. 40

Douglas, Thomas J. and William Q. Judge Jr. (2001). “Total Quality Management implementation and competitive advantage: The role of structural control and exploration,” The Academy of Management Journal 44(1), pp. 158-169. 4

Dovido, John F., Jane Allyn Piliavin, David A. Schroeder, and Louis A. Penner. (2006). The Social Psychology of Prosocial Behavior. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 39, 75

Durkheim, Emile. (1893/1997). The Division of Labor in Society. New York, New York: The Free Press. 36, 37, 53

Durkheim, Emile. (1912/2001). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 69

Eberly, Don E., ed. (1994). Building a Community of Citizens: Civil Society in the 21st Century. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. 11

Eberly, Don E.,ed. (2000). The Essential Civil Society Reader: Classic Essays in the American Civil Society Debate. New York, New York: Rowman & Littlefield. 11

Edwards, Michael. (2004). Civil Society. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. 11

Egas, Martijn and Arno Riedl. (2008). “The economics of altruistic punishment and the maintenance of cooperation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275, pp. 871-878. 47, 48

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989). “Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments,” Academy ofManagement Journal 32(3), pp. 543-576. 6

Etzioni, Amitai. (1975). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. New York, New York: The Free Press. 56

Etzioni, Amitai. (1988). The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. New York, New York: The Free Press. 39

Etzioni, Amitai. (1996). The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society. New York, New York: Basic Books. 11

Etzioni, Amitai. (2004). The Common Good. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press. 12

Faulks, Keith. (2000). Citizenship. New York, New York: Routledge. 11

Fehr, Ernst. (2004). “Don’t lose your reputation,” Nature 432, pp. 449-450. 45, 48, 78

Fehr, Ernst and Simon Gachter. (2002). “Altruistic punishment in humans,” Nature 415, pp. 137-140. 47, 71

Fehr, Ernst and Herbert Gintis. (2007). “Human motivation and social cooperation: Experimental and analytical foundations,” Annual Review of Sociology 33, pp. 43-64. 39

Folger, Robert and Russell Cropanzano. (1998). Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management.Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. 11, 26, 58, 62, 67

Freeman, Samuel, ed. (1999). John Rawls: Collected Papers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 26

George, Jennifer M. (1992). “Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations,” Academy of Management Journal 35, pp. 191-202. 49, 50, 81

George, Jennifer M. (1995). “Asymmetrical effects of rewards and punishments: The case of social loafing,” Journal

26

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 68, pp. 327-338. 50, 81

Gold, Martin, ed. (1999). The Complete Social Scientist: A Kurt Lewin Reader. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 39

Granovetter, Mark. (1985). “Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness,” The American Journal of Sociology 91(3): pp. 481-510. 40

Hackman, J. Richard and Ruth Wageman. (1995). “Total Quality Management: Empirical, conceptual, and practical issues,” Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2), pp. 309-342. 4

Handy, Charles. (1997). The Hungry Spirit: Beyond Capitalism, a Quest for Purpose in the Modern World. London, U.K.: Hutchinson. 11, 24, 25

Harkins, S.G. and R.E. Petty. (1982). “Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43, pp. 1214-1229. 49

Harkins, S.G. and K. Szymanski. (1989). “Social loafing and group evaluation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, pp. 934-941. 49

Headquarters, Department of the Army. (1999). Army Leadership: Be, Know, Do. FM 22-100. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 14, 15

Heller, Frank, Eugen Pusic, George Strauss, and Bernhard Wilpert. (1998). Organizational Participation: Myth and Reality. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 39, 42

Hendricks, Kevin B. and Vinod R. Singhai. (1997). “Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating performance: Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards,” Management Science 43(9), pp. 1258-1274. 4

Horn, John and Hiromi Masunaga. (2006). “A merging theory of expertise and intelligence.” Pp. 587-611 in The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, edited by K. Anders Ericsson, Neil Charness, Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert R. Hoffman. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. 57

Insko, Chester A., John Schopler, Rick H. Hoyle, Gregory J. Dardis, and Kenneth A. Graetz. (1990). “Individual-group discontinuity as a function of fear and greed,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(1), pp. 68-79. 39

Jassawalla, Avan, Hemant Sashittal, and Avinash Malshe. (2009). “Student’s perceptions of social loafing: Its antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom teams,” Academy of Management Learning and Education 8, pp. 42-54. 49, 50

Jones, Gareth R. (1984). “Task visibility, free riding, and shirking: Explaining the effect of structure and technology on employee behavior,” Academy of Management Review 9, pp. 684-695. 42, 44, 80

Jorgenson, D.W. and Z. Griliches. (1967). “The explanation of productivity change,” Review of Economic Studies 34(99), pp. 249-283. 21

Kahn, Ashley. (2000). Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Da Capo Press. 9, 34

Kahn, William A. (1990). “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work,” Academy of Management Journal 33(4), pp. 692-724. 18

Karoly, Paul. (1993). “Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view,” Annual Review of Psychology 44, pp. 23-52. 70

Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. 39

Kerr, N.L. (1983). “Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45, pp. 819-828. 42, 43

Kerr, N.L. and Steven E. Braun. (1983). “Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44(1), pp. 78-94. 42, 44

Kidwell, Roland E. Jr. and Nathan Bennett. (1993). “Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research,” Academy of Management Review 18, pp. 429-456. 42, 44, 49, 74, 80, 81

Kielhofner, Gary. (1995). A Model of Human Occupation: Theory and Application, 2nd ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Williams & Wilkins. 70

Klein, Gary. (2001). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 6, 51

Leader to Leader Institute. (2004). Be-Know-Do: Leadership the Army Way. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 14

Leibenstein, Harvey. (1987). Inside The Firm: The Inefficiencies of Hierarchy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 28

Leibowitz, A. and R. Tollison. (1980). “Free riding, shirking, and team production in legal partnerships,” Economic Inquiry 18, pp. 380-394. 80

Lichbach, Mark I. (1996). The Cooperator’s Dilemma. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. 39, 42, 44, 49

Manz, Charles C. and Greg L. Stewart. (1997). “Attaining flexible stability by integrating Total Quality Management and Socio-Technical Systems Theory,” Organization Science 8(1), pp. 59-70. 4

MacIver, R.M. (1950). The Ramparts We Guard. New York, New York: Macmillan Company. 37, 72

27

Manville, Brook and Josiah Ober. (2003). A Company of Citizens: What the World’s First Democracy Teaches Leaders About Creating Great Organizations. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. 11, 22, 23, 66

McClosky, Herbert and John H. Schaar. (1965). “Psychological dimensions of anomy,” American Sociological Review 30(1), pp. 14-40. 37

Merton, Robert K. (1949/1964). Social Theory and Social Structure. London, U.K.: The Free Press of Glencoe. 37, 38, 72

Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan. (1977). “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony,” The American Journal of Sociology 83(2), pp. 340-363. 76, 77

Miller, Dale T. (1999). “The norm of self-interest,” American Psychologist Dec, pp. 1053-1060. 39

Mohrman, Susan A. and Edward E. Lawler. (1996). “Do employee involvement and TQM programs work,”Journal for Quality and Participation 19(1), pp. 6-10. 4, 63

Nehring, Klaus. (2000). “A theory of rational choice under ignorance,” Theory and Decision 48, pp. 205-240. 51

Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 74

O’Reilly III, Charles A. and Jeffrey Pfeffer. (2000). Hidden Value: How Great Companies Achieve Extraordinary Results with Ordinary People. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. 26

Organ, Dennis W., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Scott B. MacKenzie. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 20, 65

Panchanathan, Karthik and Robert Boyd. (2004). “Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem,” Nature 432, pp. 499-502. 45

Pacheco, Jorge M., Francisco C. Santos, and Fabio A.C.C. Chalub. (2006). “Stern-judging: A simple, successful norm which promotes cooperation under indirect reciprocity,” PLoS Computational Biology 2(12), pp. 1634-1638. 45, 48, 82

Peters, Thomas J. and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. New York, New York: Warner Books. 29, 33

Powell, Thomas C. (1995). “Total Quality Management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical study,” Strategic Management Journal 16(1), pp. 15-37. 4, 5, 27

Rapoport, Amnon and Dalit Eshed-Levy. (1989). “Provision of step-level public goods: Effects of greed and fear of being gyped,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 44, pp. 325-344. 39

Schein, Edgar. (1990). “Organizational culture,” American Psychologist 45(2), pp. 109-119. 29, 30

Schein, Edgar. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 29, 30

Schon, Donald A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, New York: BasicBooks. 51

Schon, Donald A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 51

Selznick, Philip. (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 10, 56

Selznick, Philip. (1994). The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 26, 61

Senge, Peter M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, New York:Currency Doubleday. 51

Simon, Herbert A. (1997). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 4th ed. 55, 73

Simpson, D.P. (1968). Cassell’s Latin Dictionary. New York, New York: Macmillan. 59

Smith, Holly. (1983). “Culpable ignorance,” The Philosophical Review 92(4), pp. 543-571. 51

Soltan, Karol Edward and Stephen L. Elkin, eds. (1996). The Constitution of Good Societies. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. 11

Sony BMG Music Entertainment. (2008). Miles Davis, Kind of Blue: 50th Anniversary Collector’s Edition. New York, New York: Sony BMG Music Entertainment. 9, 35

Stigler, G.J. (1974). “Free riders and collective action: An appendix to theories of economic regulation,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 5, pp. 359-365. 74

US Army Military Personnel Center. (1979). US Army Officer Evaluation Report. D Form 6 7-8. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 14

Vogt, Christopher P. (2005). “Maximizing human potential: Capabilities Theory and the professional workenvironment,” Journal of Business Ethics 58, pp. 111-123. 19

Wagner, John A. III. (1995). “Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups,” Academy of Management Journal 38(1), pp. 152-172. 54, 60

Walton, Mary. (1986). The Deming Management Method. New York, New York: Penguin Group. 2, 3

Weick, Karl E. (1987). “Organizational culture as a source of high reliability,” California Management Review 29 (2), pp. 112-127. 6, 7

28

Weick, Karl E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 51, 79

Weick, Karl E. (2001). Making Sense of the Organization. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers. 8

Weick, Karl E. and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe. (2001). Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 6, 7, 17, 28, 29

Wilkins, Alan L. and William G. Ouchi. (1983). “Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance,” Administrative Science Quarterly 28, pp. 468-481. 30

Williams, K.D., S. Harkins, and B. Latane. (1981). “Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40, pp. 303-311. 49, 81

Williams, K.D. and S.J. Karau. (1991). “Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61, pp. 570-581. 81

Wolff, Jonathan. (1996). An Introduction to Political Philosophy. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 11

Yamagishi, Toshio and Karen S. Cook. (1993). “Generalized exchange and social dilemmas,” Social Psychology Quarterly 56(4), pp. 235-248. 42

Yamagishi, Toshio and Kaori Sato. (1986). “Motivational bases of the public goods problem,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(1), pp. 67-73. 39, 75

Zbaracki, Mark J. (1998). “The rhetoric and reality of Total Quality Management,” Administrative Science Quarterly 43, pp. 602-636. 4

51

trust & professionalism

Trust is critical in work organizations.1 Organizations require the cognitive and affective talents of many individuals to realize organizational goals. It gives life to an organization. Trust is the “social lubricant” that facilitates effi cient and effective work practices.2 Many people often confuse likeability, cooperation,

confi dence, and predictability with trust. While they aid in cohesion and are more likely outcomes of trust, they are not necessary conditions for trust to occur.3 Trust doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It requires a trustor (you), a trustee (the other person), interdependence, and the element of risk.4 The result is the trustworthiness of the trustee. Thus, trust is a cognitive and emotional “leap of faith.”5 Trust reduces uncertainty and complexity.6 It also has a socially driven moral dimension.7 Humans are inherently trusting. We have a built-in willingness or optimism to be trusting in our relationships with others.8 This is referred to as generalized trust.9 Generalized trust is based on what we believe to be morally right and just and we believe others also hold these beliefs in our social exchanges.10

Trust is the foundation on which professionalism is built. When a person claims to be a professional, we have a general tendency and willingness to trust them in their “expertness” to do what is right and just. We hold professionals to high standards and high expectations. Professionals are in a position to cause harm if they do not do their job rightly. Trust involves the element of risk and vulnerability. We have trust and confi dence in professionals to practice rightly. We have seen that professionals claim expertness and the ideal of service.11 These “espoused values’ lead us to trust them.12 We’re not sure why or how but we give them the benefi t of the doubt until we fi nd they are untrustworthy. There is the old saying, “If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.” The question becomes “What are their values-in-action?”13 Do they practice what they preach? Professionalism is about “espoused values” combined with “values-in-action,” the quality of a person’s professional practice.14 We want to trust others to do their work well and to practice what they preach, but what exactly do we measure? How do we know when another person is worthy of our trust?

As a young man, I adopted the Zen Buddhism philosophy of Beginner’s Mind to inquire and examine the real world. It is a philosophy where a person is never a master but always a beginner, always learning.15 The three elements of this philosophy are right attitude, right understanding, and right practice. I adapted this to my workstyle. Right attitude became commitment to doing a good job. Right understanding became always updating my knowledge, skills, and abilities to do a good job. Right practice became what is called kaizen or willfully, deliberately, continually practicing, exerting best effort, and never being satisfi ed with my performance. I could always do better. Confi dence in the quality of my work could be determined to some degree of Pavlovian predictability. It was my professional reputation, my authenticity; espoused values-in-action.16 There are several parallels across many disciplines dating back to Aristotle that lend support for this concept of personal trustworthiness, i.e. professionalism.17 Well-respected and highly cited academic scholars developed an integrative model of organizational trust in 1995.18 This model parallels our concept of professionalism and more specifi cally the qualities of individual trustworthiness in work environments. We will adapt this model to create specifi c measures of professionalism.

To move past the previous concept of professionalism (professionalization) to our current concept (trustworthiness of one’s practice), I will adopt a position forwarded by some that professionalism is espoused values-in-practice.19 In Section 3, we develop specifi c qualities to examine and measure professionalism. We will show how professionalism leads to exceptional individual performance and the combined effort of many exceptional performers leads to optimal organizational performance.

DEFINITIONS:

52

How is trust related to professionalism?

“Trust is mandatory for optimization of a system...Without trust, each component will protect its own immediate interests to its own long-term detriment, and to the detriment of the entire system.” W. Edwards Deming 20

Trust is the social lubricant that facilitates efficient and effective work practices.21

• ability: group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have infl uence within some specifi c domain; knowledge and skills needed to do a specifi c job along with the interpersonal skills and general wisdom needed to succeed in an organization 38

• action: deliberate, willful, and exertion of effort in the practice of an individual’s work• benevolence: the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good for the trustor, aside from an egocentric profi t motive;

HighTrustOrganizations

ability

53

loyalty, openness, receptivity, availability, caring 39

• commitment: the level of personal identifi cation with work role, the organization, and society• diversity: demographic differences of one sort or another among group members 40

• espoused values: values stated by individuals 41

• ethos: moral character depicted by the speaker’s trustworthiness and credibility 42

• generalized trust: trustor’s propensity to trust; the general willingness to trust others 43

Trust encompasses 4 elements and 3 dimensions.28

1 trustor (you)2 trustee (the other person)3 interdependence4 risk

Professionalism based on trust has several parallels of support dating back to Aristotle.

1 a cognitive process2 an emotional bond3 a confident expectation

Professionalism(factors of trustee trustworthiness)

COMMITMENT(benevolence)

KNOWLEDGE,SKILLS, andABILITIES

(ability)

ACTION(integrity)

TRUST Risk taking inrelationship

Perceivedrisk

Generalized trust in others(trustor's propensity)

Feedback Loop

Outcomes

54

• habitus: a set of acquired dispositions of thought, behavior, and taste that link social structures and social action; embodiment of cultural representations in human habits and routines 44

• integrity: trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor fi nds acceptable; consistency, discreet-ness, fairness, promise, fulfi llment, reliability, openness, value congruence 45

• knowledge, skills, and abilities: a set of personal work practices that enable an individual to perform their work• logos: the clarity of a logical argument 46

(Adaptation 29 note: Mayer et.al. model is noted in parenthesis)

Professionalism is the "espoused values-in-practice" of a person based on their: 1. commitment, 2. knowledge, skills, and ability, 3. action.

1 stable order (habitus)

2 cohesive order (passion)

3 collaborative order (policy)

- reduces anxiety caused by ambiguity and uncertainty

- social control through a habitus mechanism (habit, reputation, and memory)

- familiarity, friendship, common values- social control through relationships with family, friends, and society- internalization and moral commitment (a person’s identity)- trust as an affective condition for coping with other’s authenticity- collective orientation- feelings of obligation, altruism, moral pressure which restrains egoistic behavior

(collective conscience)- responsibility, values, legitimacy (trust relations)

- trust as a device for coping with the freedom of others- social control through solidarity, toleration, and legitimacy

* predictability, reliability, and legibility

* normative regulation

* social cooperation

55

• optimism: the attitude that things happen for the best and that people’s wishes or aims will ultimately be fulfi lled; expectation of positive outcomes 47

• pathos: emotional consideration of the audience 48

• perceived risk: trustor’s belief about the likelihoods of gains and losses outside of considerations that involve the relationship with a particular trustee 49

• pisteis: proofs; three means of persuasion based on character, logical argument, and arousing emotion 50

Trust reduces social complexity and produces social order.30

56

• professionalism: an individual’s espoused values-in-practice based on commitment, knowledge, skills, and abilities, and action• risk taking in relationship: assessing the risk in a situation involves consideration of the context, such as weighing the likelihood of

both positive and negative outcomes that might occur; assuming situational risk 51

• social exchange: the voluntary process of give-and-take between two or more people centering on the dependence of a person’s conduct 52

• tacit knowledge: knowledge that is informally acquired rather than explicitly taught and allows a person to succeed in certain

Trust evolves with personal interactions.31

Trust is situation-specific.32

* we wouldn’t go to a plumber to have a heart transplant and we wouldn’t go to a heart surgeon to have a toilet installed.

* professional “expertness / expertise” is in different areas

57

environments and pursuits; knowledge stored without self-refl ective awareness and not easily transferred to others; we know more than we can tell 53

• trust: a social psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviors of another; the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other party 54

• trustworthiness: expectations of how another person will behave; belief in a professional’s competence and integrity; combination

During the eighth year of my career as a fi refi ghter, I was transferred from Central fi rehouse to an engine company at another fi rehouse. I knew the fi refi ghters and over a short period, we became close personal friends. It was a pleasure to work with these guys. I looked forward to coming to work. The fi re company offi cer was very talented and I trusted him when we would respond to emergency medical calls, car wrecks and extrication, hazardous material calls, dragging the river for a body, diplomacy with the public, commercial inspections, and pretty much anything they threw at us except fi ghting fi res. He just didn’t like fi ghting fi res. There’s a saying that a fi re crew is as strong as its weakest link. When it came to fi ghting fi res, he was our weakest link. The other crew members knew that when we responded to a fi re, he would grab a nozzle and stick it in the window and fl ow water. This is not a good thing for the fi refi ghters inside. It pushes the fi re back on you. I looked at it as an opportunity to get really good, really fast. With the advent of smoke detectors and the increase in fi re service public education programs, the number of house fi res seems to have decreased. The majority of emergency calls are now non-fi re related.

It’s diffi cult to imagine how he personally felt about his fi re fi ghting skills when his job included in its’ job title the word “fi re.” I don’t know if he had doubt in his knowledge, skills, or abilities. He was, as in our fi rst topic, a Code 2 guy who needed some serious work for us to trust him in fi ghting fi res.

Not everyone on a fi re crew has the same level of talent in all things. Some guys are really good at tying knots. Yes, we tie a lot of knots in our business. Some are exceptional at medical calls. We know who these people are that have high levels of talent in particular specialties and they become the “go-to” guys. Their tacit knowledge is diffi cult to transfer to others. They are unique to each individual. They are worthy of high trust when it comes to that specialty. The question is, “Was the fi re company offi cer a good fi refi ghter?” If you base the sole indicator for being a good fi refi ghter on fi ghting fi res, I think not. If you base being a good fi refi ghter on the combination or set of skills, then yes. Trustworthiness of a person or professionalism is the combined set of factors that add up to a total package.

Professionalism is not a one-trick pony.33

= total professionalism

58

of a person’s benevolence, ability, and integrity 55

• trustor propensity: the general willingness to trust others 56

• values-in-action: consistent behavior with an individuals stated values 57

When trust is grounded in professionalism, it minimizes personal diversity biases.34

* the focus is on the quality of the work

Managerial and organizational behaviors impact trust.36

“What’s that white guy doing there? Miles (Davis) wants him there, he’s supposed to be there!” 35

59

e��� ��� �i�h� t� �� ��us�e�

Punctuate your workstyle with professionalism...

The 7 Cardinal Principles of Trust37

1. Trust is not blind. * unwise to trust people whom you do not know well, observed in action over time, and who are not committed to the same goals

2. Trust needs boundaries. * unlimited trust is unrealistic; we trust certain people in certain areas

3. Trust requires constant learning. * individuals need to be capable of self-renewal

4. Trust is tough. * trust is like glass, once broken it can never be the same

5. Trust needs bonding. * trust is not an impersonal commodity

6. Trust needs touch. * shared commitment requires personal contact

7. Trust has to be earned. * individuals will not be trusted fully until they have proved they

can deliver

The question isn’t who CAN practice professionalism, butwho CANNOT practice professionalism. * professionalism is a personal willful choice!

60

Sources:Anderson, Norman H. and Clifford A. Butzin. (1974). “Performance = motivation x ability: An integration theoretical analysis,” Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 30(5), pp. 598-604. 17, 24, 33

American Psychological Association. (2007). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 47, 53

Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 12, 13, 14,

16, 19, 41, 57

Argyris, Chris. (1992/1999). On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 41, 57

Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. 12, 13,

14, 16, 19, 41, 57

Barker, James R. (1993). “Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly 38, pp. 408-437. 36

Blau, Peter M. (2005). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 2, 10, 32, 52

Chatman, Jennifer A, Jeffrey T. Plozer, Sigal G. Barsade, and Margaret A. Neale. (1998). “Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work practices and outcomes,” Administrative Science Quarterly 43, pp. 749-780. 34

Collins, Jim. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t. New York, New York: HarperCollins. 17, 26, 33

Colquitt, Jason A., Brent A. Scott, and Jeffrey A. LePine. (2007). “Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationship with risk taking and job performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4), pp. 909-927. 1, 2, 4, 21, 28, 32, 33, 38

Deming, W. Edwards. (1994). “Foreword.” Foreword in The Trust Factor: Liberating Profits and Restoring Corporate Vitality, edited by J.O. Whitney. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. 1, 2, 20

Dirks, Kurt T. and Donald L. Ferrin. (2001). “The role of trust in organizational settings,” Organization Science 4, pp. 450-467. 1, 2, 4, 21, 28

Dirks, Kurt T. and Donald L. Ferrin. (2002). “Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice,” Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4), pp. 611-628. 4, 28, 36

Elias, Norbert. (1939/2000). The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Edited by Eric Dunning, Johan Goudsblom, and Stephen Mennell. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. 44

Ely, Robin J. and David A. Thomas. (2001). “Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes,” Administrative Science Quarterly 46, pp. 229-273. 34, 40

Garver, Eugene. (1994). Aristotle’s Rhetoric: An Art of Character. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. 17, 22, 33, 42, 46, 48, 50

Handy, Charles. (1997). The Hungry Spirit: Beyond Capitalism, A Quest for Purpose in the Modern World. London, UK: Hutchinson. 37

Kahn, Ashley. (2000). Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Da Capo Press. 35

Kollock, Peter. (2006). “The emergence of exchange structures: An experimental study of uncertainty, commitment, and trust.” Pp. 170-203 in Organizational Trust, edited by Roderick M. Kramer. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 16

Leader to Leader Institute. (2004). Be-Know-Do: Leadership the Army Way. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 17, 25, 33

Lewis, David J. and Andrew Weigert. (1985). “Trust as social reality,” Social Forces 63(4), pp. 967-985. 4, 5, 6, 11, 28, 32, 33, 54

Lovaglia, Michael J. (2006). “Working together.” Chapters 7 and 9 in Becoming a Team, by Roy C. Herrenkohl. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western.3

Maister, David H. (2000). True Professionalism. New York, New York: Touchstone Books. 14, 19

Mannix, Elizabeth and Margaret A. Neale. (2005). “What differences makes a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 6, pp. 31-55. 34

Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. (1995). “An integrative model of organizational trust,” Academy of Management Review 20(3), pp. 709-734. 3, 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56

Mayer, Roger C. and James H. Davis. (1999). “The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment,” Journal of Applied Psychology 84(1), pp. 123-136. 1, 2, 4, 21, 28, 32, 33, 36

Mayer, Roger C. and Mark B. Gavin. (2005). “Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss,” Academy of Management Journal 48(5), pp. 874-888. 4, 28, 36

McAllister, Daniel J. (1995). “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations,” The Academy of Management Journal 38(1), pp. 24-59. 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 21, 28, 33

McKnight, D. Harrison, Larry L. Cummings, and Norman L. Chervany. (2006). “Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships.” Pp. 111-139 inOrganizational Trust, edited by Roderick M. Kramer. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 4, 16, 28, 32, 33

Misztal, Barbara A. (1996). Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press. 2, 7, 16, 21, 30

Mullen, Brian and Carolyn Copper. (1994). “The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration,” Psychological Bulletin 115(2), pp. 210-227. 3

Parkan, Baris. (2007). “Professionalism: A virtue or estrangement from self-activity,” Journal of Business Ethics 78, pp. 77-85. 11

Polanyi, Michael. (1997). “The tacit dimension.” Pp. 135-146 in Knowledge in Organizations, edited by Laurence Prusak. Newton, Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann. 53

Rousseau, Denise M., Sim B. Sitkin, Ronald S. Burt, and Colin Camerer. (1998). “Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust,” Academy of Management Review 23(3), pp. 393-404. 1, 2, 4, 12, 21, 28, 31, 54

Rousseau, Denise M. (2001). “Schema, promise, and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74, pp. 511-541. 12, 36

Schon, Donald A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, New York: Basic Books. 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 41, 57

Schon, Donald A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 41, 57

Schoorman, F. David, Roger C. Mayer, and James H. Davis. (2007). “An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future,” Academy of Management Review 32(2), pp. 344-354. 4, 28, 33

Scott, John and Gordon Marshall. (2005). A Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd ed. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 44

Sitkin, Sim B. and Amy L. Pablo. (1992). “Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior,” Academy of Management Review 17(1), pp. 9-38. 4, 28

Sitkin, Sim B. and Robert J. Bies. (1993). “The legalistic organization: Definitions, dimensions, and dilemmas,” Organization Science 4(3), pp. 345-351.36

Sitkin, Sim B. and Nancy L. Roth. (1993). “Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust / distrust,” Organizational Science 4(3), pp. 367-392. 36

Suzuki, Shunryu. (1970). Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind. New York, New York: John Weatherhill. 15, 23, 33

Uslander, Eric M. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. 7, 8, 9, 10, 43

Whitener, Ellen M., Susan E. Brodt, M. Audrey Korsgaard, and Jon M. Werner. (2006). “Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior.” Pp. 140-169 in Organizational Trust, edited by Roderick M. Kramer. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 4, 28, 36

Yamagishi, Toshio and Karen S. Cook. (1993). “Generalized exchange and social dilemmas,” Social Psychology Quarterly 56(4), pp. 235-248. 1, 2, 4, 21, 28

91

During my forty plus years of working in several occupations and careers, I have had the misfortune to work for many “bad” or ineffective leaders, the opportunity to work with many “good” or effective leaders, and the rare privilege and high honor to work directly with two “exceptional” or extremely effective leaders. The

fi rst exceptional leader was Colonel Jack I. Gregory who was the Director of Operations and I was a young air op-erations controller in the U.S. Air Force at the time. This leader-follower relationship occurred in an old command-and-control military work environment. He would later retire as a 4-star general. The second exceptional leader was Professor Lawrence D. Prybil. This leader-colleague relationship occurred later in my life within a collegial work environment. I was a Ph.D. candidate and lead research assistant for a team of highly respected academics over a two and a half year project. Both of these exceptional individuals epitomized leadership as well as professionalism. They were exemplars of professionalism to emulate. Both individuals strongly identifi ed and were committed to the work, the organization, and society. They possessed great knowledge, skills, and abilities. And both deliberately practiced with volition. Thus, exceptional leadership can be found in any work environment and it is based on an individual’s characteristics.

Literally, tens of thousands of academic journal articles and books have been written concerning leadership. For our discussion, I will focus on two: the big picture and self-leadership. As a doctoral student, I participated in three Ph.D. seminar courses concerning leadership. They were from three different disciplines or perspectives: sociology (power and status), business environments, and educational collegial environments. A leadership model developed by Gary Yukl integrates these perspectives and helps us to understand leadership more clearly.1 Leadership exists as an individual’s ability to infl uence outcomes. It begins with the characteristics of the leader. These personal char-acteristics infl uence their personal power and their leadership behavior or “style.” Leadership doesn’t occur in a vacuum or doesn’t directly infl uence outcomes.2 Leaders infl uence certain intervening variables that then infl uence outcomes. As an example, let’s examine a school principal, teachers, and students. The principal (leader) doesn’t di-rectly infl uence student outcomes but infl uences teachers who then affect student outcomes. It is the teacher’s talent and effort that directly impacts student outcomes, not the principal’s.

It seems that when we speak of leadership, we think about the popular leadership “styles.” These leadership styles may be thought of as occurring along a continuum from the absence of leadership to self-leadership.3 Transactional leaders focus on an exchange relationship with subordinates. If a subordinate does some work, the leader will reward them with something of value. For simplicity sake, let’s call this “task work.” Transformational leaders develop a relationship with followers and inspire them to do more than what is expected. Let’s call this “whole person work.” Transformational leadership impacts outcomes greater than transactional leadership; it’s additive.4 Charismatic lead-ership falls into this category. At some point, a leader’s rhetoric will need to turn into purposeful action or followers may think they’ve been sold a bill of goods and their reputation may suffer and never be regained.5 Self-leadership is the ability of an individual to exercise personal leadership through external concertive controls such as: values, norms, standards, and expectations and through internal controls such as: personal values and beliefs. Self-leader-ship requires more from individuals. It is more diffi cult but much more infl uential on outcomes.6 A distinguishing feature that separates professionals from other workers is autonomous work that occurs within a framework of high standards and high expectations.7 Professionals practice self-leadership in a constructive culture of a mature collegial work environment.8 They develop higher-order self-infl uence or self-leadership competencies that regulate their con-duct and actions.9 Professionals are self-effi cacious human agents of purposeful action. We’ll call this “talent work.”

Organizational competitive advantage (outcomes) derives from what makes the organization different from other organizations.10 Previously, differentiation came from the products or services that made organizations different. Differentiation then evolved to the management of the processes. Today, competitive advantage is derived from the human conduct and talent that exists within the organization.11 It is a rare opportunity to “out-behave” the competi-tion.12 Self-leadership becomes a source of competitive advantage; dynamic, energized, aligned performance that results in high client satisfaction, improved organizational capability, innovation, creativity, and enhanced individual growth and well-being.13 It is competitive advantage that is long-term, unique, cumulative, interconnected, and renewable.14

Leadership

DEFINITIONS:

92

What is leadership?

Effective leadership is an individual’'s ability to...

Lines of “influence”

(Adaptation15)

• affect: feeling or emotion; one of the three components of the mind 40

• autonomous work: self-governing; act in accord with one’s self; feeling free and volitional in one’s actions; initiators of their own actions 41

• autonomy: the degree to which a job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out 42

93

influence positive outcomes.

• charismatic leadership: a special personality characteristic that ties followers and their self-concepts to organizational identity 43

• cognition: all forms of knowing and awareness, such as perceiving, conceiving, remembering, reasoning, judging, imagining, and problem-solving; one of the three components of the mind 44

• creativity: the generation of new or novel ideas that are useful 45

• human agency: the state of being active, usually in the service of a goal, or exerting power or infl uence 46

• innovation: a multiple-stage process in which an individual recognizes a problem, generates new (novel or adopted) ideas and

94

solutions, works to promote and build support for them, and produces an applicable prototype or model for the use and benefi t of the organization 47

• leadership: (simplest form) an individual’s ability to infl uence outcomes 48

• norm: actions regarded as proper or correct, improper or incorrect, purposely generated and enforced through sanctions 49

• self-effi cacy: an individual’s capacity to act effectively to bring about desired results, especially as perceived by the individual 50

• standard: the criterion for evaluating the goodness or worth of a person, action, or event; any positive idea about how things might

10 most important leadership functions for enhancing and coordinating the activities and efforts of collective work 16

1 Help interpret the meaning of events and identify emerging threats and opportunities.2 Create alignment / agreement on objectives, priorities, and strategies.3 Build task enthusiasm, commitment, and confidence.4 Foster mutual respect, trust, and cooperation to confront and resolve differences in a constructive

manner.5 Create and strengthen a unique collective identity.6 Organize and coordinate interrelated activities that makes efficient use of people and resources.7 Encourage and facilitate collective, continuous learning, and innovation.8 Obtain the necessary resources and support through favorable exchanges with external parties.9 Help people develop essential skills and empower people to become change agents and self-leaders.0 Promote social justice and morality through a climate of fairness, compassion, and social

responsibility.

There is a moral/ethical aspect to leadership conduct and character. 17

5 principles of ethical leadership whose origin dates back to Aristotle 18

1 Ethical leaders respects others.* treats people’s decisions and values with respect

2 Ethical leaders serve others.* attending to others is the primary building block of moral leadership * a steward (servant) of the vision within the organization clarifies and nurtures a vision greater than oneself

3 Ethical leaders are fair and just.* treats all their subordinates in an equal manner* fairness is at the center of their decision-making

4 Ethical leaders are honest.* honesty is being open and candid with others and representing reality as fully and completely as possible* dishonesty, the opposite of honesty, compromises trust

5 Ethical leaders build community.* influences others to attain a common goal * a common good is beneficial for both leader and followers* attention to civic virtue (mutually determined goals) and seeks to establish higher moral purposes

95

be such as an ideal, norm, value, expectation, or previous performance, that is used to measure and judge the way things are 51

• volition: making choices and decisions, taking responsibility, initiating and inhibiting behavior, and making plans of action and carry-ing out those plans; voluntary willful action and self-regulation 52

• work: an activity that produces something of value for other people 53

Leadership "styles" occur along a continuum.

Laissez-Faire Leadership is the absence of leadership.* This leader abdicates responsibility, delays decisions, gives no feedback, and makes little effort to satisfy followers needs.19

Transactional Leadership focuses on an exchange between a designated leader and a subordinate. * This leader exchanges things of value with subordinates to advance their own and their subordinates desires. Subordinate reward is contingent on the performance of task. This leader watches for mis-takes and takes corrective action or intervenes only after standards have not been met or problems arise.20 The leader initiates, questions, or proposes; the follower complies, resists, or ignores.21 It may result in follower compliance but is not likely to generate enthusiasm or commitment.22

Transformational Leadership engages with others and creates a relationship that raises motivation and commitment in both the follower and the leader.23

* This leader transforms and motivates followers by making them more aware of the importance of the task, inducing them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organization or team, and activates higher-order individual needs.24 It is concern with improving the performance of followers and developing them to their full potential. They have a strong set of internal values and ideals.25 It is “socialized leadership.” These leaders act as strong role models for emulation, communicate high expec-tations and a shared vision, stimulate followers to be creative, innovative, and challenged. They act as coaches and advisors. Transformational leaders produce greater effects than transactional leaders.26

Self-Managed Teams have members who have a shared responsibility for executing tasks and monitoring and managing their own performance.27 * The members set the overall direction, design the performance standards and context, monitor and manage the work process, and execute the task.28 Self-managed teams share the workload, voice their concerns and offer constructive suggestions for change, and cooperate with each other member.29 Self-managed teams are highly effective and contribute to members satisfaction through self-regulation, task variety, autonomy, identity, task significance, and feedback mechanisms.30

Self-Leadership is personal leadership exercised through external (group norms, values, standards, ex-pectations) and internal controls (personal values, beliefs).31

96

Professionals are self-motivated, autonomous workers who practice self-control, self-regulation, i.e., "self-leadership”" in a constructive culture of a mature collegial workenvironment.32

Constructive Culture: 34 (see Topic 1: Cool)* Achievement norms: Members are expected to set challenging but realistic goals, establish plans to reach those goals, and pursue them with enthusiasm.* Self-Actualizing norms: Members are expected to enjoy their work, develop themselves, and take on new and interesting tasks.* Humanistic-Encouraging norms: Members are expected to be supportive, constructive, and open to influence in their dealings with one another.* Affiliative norms: Members are expected to be friendly, cooperative, and sensitive to the satisfaction of their work group.

Collegial Work: 33 (see Topic 7: Work)* Mutual contribution * Integration and teamwork* Responsibility * Self-discipline* Self-realization * Enthusiasm* Commitment to task and team

Autonomous Workers are: 35

* self-governing: free and volitional in one’s action → authentic

* intrinsically motivated: satisfaction from work that is of value to others → self-regulated

* responsible: internalize and accept values and behavior regulations → service to others

* competent: strategies and capacity for attaining desired outcomes → strive for mastery

* social: connected, involved, and identify with others → interpersonal dependence

* mature: open interaction unencumbered by ego or defensiveness → trustful

* optimal problem-solvers: highly disciplined performers → creative and innovative

* respectful: accepts others and respects environment → concerned

97

Several conditions foster self-leadership.36

1 The overall direction of the work is clear and engaging to empower people.

Someone exercises authority to set direction for the group.

* orients members toward common objectives facilitating coordinated action* energizes and engages members by having a visible impact on others, stretching member’s talent and energy, and stimulating imagery* provides a criterion for members; some clear set of values to use in evaluating action

2 The structure fosters competent performance through the design of the task, the composition of the group, and expectations; an enabling performance structure.

Individuals must exert effort to accomplish the task at acceptable levels of performance, bring adequate levels of knowledge and skill to bear on the work, and employ appropriate performance strategies.

* effort is influenced by task design properties when members experience the task as meaningful, experience personal responsibility, and experience knowledge of the results of their work* knowledge and skill depends on the people assigned to the work* performance strategies are employed by members when they understand they are respon-sible for regulating their behavior and are obligated to continually assess the situation and actively plan how they will proceed (norms, shared expecta-tions)

3 The organization supports competent work.

Organizational support fosters or limits effectiveness.

* a reward system that recognizes and reinforces excellent performance* an education system that fills in gaps in member talent and contributes to the development of member’s knowledge and skill* an information system that provides clear information about: 1 requirements, constraints, and opportunities, 2 the resources available for use, 3 the people and assessment standards who will use the end product/service

4 Expert coaching and consultation are available and provided at appropriate times.

Additional support through hands-on coaching and consultation can hone skills and develop talent.

* assist in: building commitment, evaluating ideas and sharing of expertise, avoiding flawed implemen-tation, and inventing creative ways for proceeding with the work

5 Material resources are adequate and available.

Material resources provide the means for getting the work done.

* insufficient resources are a major roadblock to performance effectiveness

98

Professionals develop higher-order self-influence competencies to regulate their conduct and actions.37

External Concertive Controls / Infl uences* values, norms, standards, expectations, rules, policies, procedures * appraisal * reward and punishment systems * organizational structure * organizational beliefs, visions, and culture

Internal Controls / Infl uences* individual goals, values, beliefs, scripts, and programs* intrinsic motivation

* feelings of self-efficacy and control, personal and social competence, and purpose

self-standards → behavior → self-evaluation → self-administered consequences

Strategies and Techniques1 Self-Observation: systematic data gathering about one’s own behavior

that establishes the basis for self-evaluation2 Specifying Goals: specific, public stated goals result in improved

performance3 Cueing Strategies (stimulus control): limiting bad behavior stimulus and

increasing desirable behavior stimulus4 Self-Reinforcement: adoption of high performance standards5 Self-Punishment: reduction of undesired behaviors by administering

aversive consequences6 Rehearsal: the systematic practice of desired performance

*Self-leadership requires deliberate reflective practice to regulate cognitive and affective conduct and behavior. 38

99

��� es�i�n�l� �rac�i��

��l�-�ea��r����

Professional and self-leadership talent become sources of organizational competitive advantage.39

self-standards → behavior → self-evaluation → self-administered consequences

(see Topic 3: Professionalism)

100

Sources:American Psychological Association. (2007). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.40, 44, 46, 50, 51

Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.9, 37, 38

Bandura, Albert. (1977). “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,” Psychological Review 84(2), pp. 191-215.9, 37, 38

Bandura, Albert. (1982). “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency,” American Psychologist 37(2), pp. 122-147.9, 37, 38

Bandura, Albert. (1989). “Human agency in Social Cognitive Theory,” American Psychologist 44(9), pp. 1175-1184.9, 37, 38

Bandura, Albert. (1989). “Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy,” Developmental Psychology 25(5), pp. 729-735.9, 37, 38

Bandura, Albert. (1989). “Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision-making,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(5), pp. 805-814.9, 37, 38

Bandura, Albert. (1991). “Social Cognitive Theory of self-regulation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, pp. 248-287.9, 37, 38

Bandura, Albert. (2000). “Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 9(3), pp. 75-78.9, 37, 38

Bandura, Albert. (2001). “Social Cognitive Theory: An agentic perspective,” Annual Review of Psychology 52, pp. 1-26.9, 37, 38

Barker, James R. (1993). “Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly 38, pp. 408-437.6, 7, 37

Bass, Bernard M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed. New York, New York: The Free Press.3, 21

Baumeister, Roy F., Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Diane M. Tice. (1998). “Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(5), pp. 1252-1265.52

Birnbaum, Robert. (1992). How Academic Leadership Works: Understanding Success and Failure in the College Presidency. San Francisco, California:Jossey-Bass.6

Brief, Arthur P. and Ramon J. Aldag. (1981). “The self in work organizations: A conceptual review,” Academy of Management Review 6(1), pp. 75-88.9, 37

Brief, Arthur P. and Howard M. Weiss. (2002). “Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace,” Annual Review of Psychology 53, pp. 279-307.9, 37

Brien, Andrew. (1998). “Professional ethics and the culture of trust,” Journal of Business Ethics 17, pp. 391-409.5, 8, 17, 32

Carmeli, Abraham, Ravit Meitar, and Jacob Weisberg. (2006). “Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work,” International Journal ofManpower 27(1), pp. 75-90.11, 14, 15, 39, 45, 47

Cohen, Susan G. and Gerald E. Ledford. (1994). “The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment,” Human Relations 47(1), pp. 13-43.27,

28, 29, 30

Coleman, James S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.49

Cooke, Robert A. and Janet L. Szumal. (2000). “Using the Organizational Culture Inventory to understand the operating cultures of organizations.” Pp. 147-162 in Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate, edited by Neal M. Ashkanasy, Celeste P. M. Wilderom, and Mark F. Peterson. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.8, 32, 34

Davis, Keith. (1968). “Evolving models of organizational behavior,” The Academy of Management Journal 11(1), pp. 27-38.8, 32, 33

Deci, Edward L. (1996). Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation. New York, New York: Penguin Books.8, 32, 35, 41

Erez, Amir, Jeffrey A. Lepine, and Heather Elms. (2002). “Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment,” Personnel Psychology 55, pp. 929-948.11, 29, 39

Goleman, Daniel, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee. (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.9, 37

Gregory, Jack I. Interview by author. 7 February 2004.15

Hackman, J. Richard and Greg R. Oldham. (1975). “Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey,” Journal of Applied Psychology 60(2), pp. 159-170.31

Hackman, J. Richard and Greg R. Oldham. (1976). “Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16(2), pp. 250-279.13, 14, 31

Hackman, J. Richard. (1986). “The psychology of self-management in organizations.” Pp. 89-136 in Psychology and Work: Productivity, Change, and Employment, edited by Michael S. Pallak and Robert O. Perloff. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.13, 14, 27, 28, 31, 36, 39

Halpern, David. (2005). Social Capital. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press.11

Karoly, Paul. (1993). “Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view,” Annual Review of Psychology 44, pp. 23-52.52

Kielhofner, Gary. (1995). A Model of Human Occupation; Theory and Application, 2nd ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Williams & Wilkins.52

Lawler, Edward E. III. (2008). Talent: Making People Your Competitive Advantage. San Francisco, California: John Wiley & Sons.11, 39

Luthans, Fred and Tim R.V. Davis. (1979). “Behavioral self-management: The missing link in managerial effectiveness,” Organizational Dynamics 8(1), pp. 42-60.9, 11, 37

Luthans, Fred and Carolyn M. Youssef. (2004). “Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage,” Organizational Dynamics 33(2), pp. 143-160.11, 14, 37, 39

Malone, Thomas W. (2004). The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization, Your Management Style, and Your Life. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.11

Manz, Charles C. and Henry P. Sims Jr. (1980). “Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A Social Learning Theory perspective,” Academy of Management Review 5(3), pp. 361-367.9, 31, 37, 38

Manz, Charles C. (1986). “Self-leadership: Toward and expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations,” The Academy of Management Review 11(3), pp. 585-600.9, 31, 37, 38

Manz, Charles C., Kevin W. Mossholder, and Fred Luthans. (1987). “An integrated perspective of self-control in organizations,” Administration & Society 19(1), pp. 3-24.9, 11, 13, 31, 37, 38, 39

Manz, Charles C. (1992). “Self-leading work teams: Moving beyond self-management myths,” Human Relations 45(11), pp. 1119-1140.9, 27, 31, 37, 38

Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. (1995). “An integrative model of organizational trust,” Academy of Management Review20(3), pp. 709-734.15

Mills, Peter K. (1983). “Self-management: Its control and relationship to other organizational properties,” Academy of Management Review 8(3), pp. 445-453.9, 37

Northouse, Peter G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.3, 4, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 43

Oldham, Greg R., J. Richard Hackman, and Jone L. Pearce. (1976). “Conditions under which employees respond positively to enriched work,” Journal of Applied Psychology 61(4), pp. 395-403.42

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. (1992). Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.15

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.11, 39

Seidman, Dov. (2007). How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything in Business and In Life. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.10, 12, 39

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1973). Report of a Special Task Force: Work in America. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.53

Yukl, Gary. (1989). “Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research,” Journal of Management 15(2), pp. 251-289.1, 2, 15, 48

Yukl, Gary. (2002). Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed. Delhi, India: Pearson Education.16, 22, 24

111

Up to this point, we have attempted to clear up some of the fuzziness of the concept of professionalism in our We Only Do Cool model in Topic 1. We have determined that the previous concept of professionalism was insuffi cient and have re-defi ned professionalism as espoused values-in-practice based on trust. We have examined several elements and concepts of the work environment in which exceptional performance exhibited as professionalism may exist and thrive. We have also developed a model or image of “Professional Man.” In this fi nal section, we will develop a generalized model of professionalism across all occupations. Trust in professionals and their practice is professional-ism at it’s very basic, therefore, we have designated it “101.” It is original research conducted by myself as a Ph.D. candidate. If one were to take issue with it, I alone am to fault.

The concept of professionalism is very appealing and compelling. When we hear someone say, “I am a profes-sional” or “She is very professional,” it infers that we should trust that individual and that we should also strive to be trusted. I have made the argument that professionalism, as previously defi ned, is inadequate due

to the abstractness and looseness surrounding the qualities of this concept. I have made the claim that professional-ism should be based on the quality or trust in an individual’s practice and that the quality of that trust are measures of the commitment, the knowledge, skills, and abilities, and lastly, the deliberate willful actions of an individual. These are the values that an individual claims, professes, or espouses as their own. Professionalism redefi ned is espoused values-in-practice. So, what are these values one espouses as their own?

Science is a systematic search for the objective truth through qualifi cation and quantifi cation.1 “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is entitled to his own facts.”2 Science is about fi rst qualifying what we are talking about; defi ning an idea or concept and making it clear. What are the specifi c qualities of this concept or idea? We qualify our ideas through a process of rational logic and ground them in ideas that came before us. Simply put, does it make sense with what already exists?3 After we have developed the qualities or measures of the concept or idea, we quan-tify or measure them through empirical or evidence-based data. Is our concept or idea correct and how correct is it? It is a diligent effort to make the abstract more concrete. In this present topic, we develop our qualities of profession-alism or the values one espouses.

Earlier we had determined that the single property that separates the professional from all other occupational groups is education (see: Topic 3). This begs the question, “What is the purpose of education in a democratic society? And do professionals who posses this level of education practice the values purported by this education?” The purpose of education in a democratic society is to develop a learned citizenry with the capacity to govern and to be governed.4 We may think of this as education in “citizen values” that may be practiced by anyone. When we think about it, the purpose of education is not to create individuals to simply do math, to do science, or task work but to create whole persons to do a myriad of many things, to make full use of their talent within society.5 To prepare the citizen for good acts and good character is to prepare the individual for “consciousness of kind.”6 It is through this conscious-ness of kind that the social and the non-social conduct are separated and a ‘fellow feeling” causes mutual aid to one another.7 The essentials of citizen skills become not merely product or structure but a continuing social process. It is the process of feeling, of thinking, and of functioning together as effective citizens. Good character becomes the objective and consciousness of kind becomes the motive.

To qualify and equate these citizen values with espoused values, two studies were conducted. The fi rst study was a manual content analysis to generate and identify these “citizen values” or attitudes and skills in a review of the citi-zen education literature in the United States and Great Britain over the last one hundred years.8 This was a qualita-tive effort to ground our concept of professionalism with citizen education.9 This study was followed by a qualitative ethnographic study of medical students at a large Midwestern university as they proceed through the professional-ization process. This effort would ground professionalism with professional education.10 The result of these studies was the construction of citizen values or for our purposes, “espoused values.” These espoused values consist of seven fi rst order dimensions, twenty-six second order qualities or measures, and twenty-four third order qualities or measures. Each of the seven dimensions were given equal weighting or equal importance with the belief that profes-sionalism as espoused values-in-practice is a multi-dimensional construct.

Professionalism 101: Qualified

DEFINITIONS:

112

• affect: feeling or emotion 53

• autocracy: a system of government by one person with absolute power 54

• cognition: all forms of knowing and awareness, such as perceiving, conceiving, remembering, reasoning, judging, imagining, and problem-solving 55

• consciousness of kind: conscious cooperation through common interest, similar response, communication, and confi dence in each

What are the espoused values-in-practice that lead us to trust professionals?

Professionalism 101 is based on the values and skills of an educated citizenry.

autocracy: (Greek) autos “self” + kratos “power”; governance by one person 12

democracy: (Greek) demos “the people” + kratos “power”; governance by many 13

oligarchy: (Greek) oligoi “few” + arkhein “to rule”; governance by few 14

* Democracy infers rights but also responsibilities. Democracy is a developing and complex process concerned with the general welfare, civil liberties, the consent of the governed, the appeal to reason, and the pursuit of happiness. 16

* Democracy and citizen education have developed together. 17 Democratic citizen education is preparation not to compete but to cooperate. Social order through citizen education becomes the “civilizing process.” 18

* Democratic citizen education is a necessity of life, a social function, a direction and growth. 19 Citizen education produces the will, the skill, the attitude, and the aptitude. 20

Unlike other forms of governance, a democracy is “rule by the people” or “self-governance.” 11

The purpose of education in a democratic society is to develop a learned citizenry with the capacity to govern and to be governed. 15

113

other 56

• construct: a complex idea or concept formed from a synthesis of simpler ideas; an explanatory model based on empirically verifi -able and measurable events or processes 57

• content analysis: the classifi cation of textual material, reducing it to more relevant, manageable bits of data 58

• democracy: a form of government in which people have a voice in the exercise of power 59

• educate: to give intellectual, moral, and social instruction 60

The democratic conception of education is a social function: 21

* the intellectual and emotional implications of human association* the democratic ideal of shared common interests, reliance upon mutual interests as

social control, and change in social habit - it’s continuous readjustment* the Platonic philosophy to educate individuals in developing their natural aptitude in

such a way as to be useful to others* the individualistic ideal of the diversity of individual talent and the need for free

development of individuality* education as national and as social; the freeing of individual capacity in a progres-

sive growth directed toward society

Democratic societies “have a type of education which gives individuals a personal interest in social relationships and control, and the habits of mind which secure social changes without introducing disorder.” John Dewey 22

“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” Thomas Jefferson 23

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesom discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.” Thomas Jefferson 24

“I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource to be relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue, and advancing the happiness of man.” Thomas Jefferson 25

114

• education: the process of educating or being educated; the theory and practice of teaching 61

• ethnography: fi eld research conducted in natural social settings, in the actual contexts in which people pursue their daily lives; description and interpretation of a social group or system 62

• fellow feeling: mutual sympathy; sympathetic awareness of others 63

• governance: the action or manner of governing (control or infl uence) 64

• indices: (index) an indicator, sign, or measure of something; a number representing the relative value or magnitude of something in

Historical Aspects Of Citizen EducationCitizen education is not new and fi rst appeared during the Greco-Roman times. Aristotle fi rst brought up the idea of education for the citizenry in a democracy. He believed that an able, self-disciplined, and virtuous citizen was possible only through training and instruction. These were citizens that could lead (elected) and could be led (elector). It is through the process of subordinating oneself to the order of the State that individuals could reach their full potential.26 The Middle Ages saw a decline in individual responsibility and the sense of citizenship. The Renaissance brought about harmonious development of body, mind, and character. And it was thought that training for good citizenship should be the highest end of education. As the ideals of the Enlightenment moved throughout the western world, democracy and individual rights took hold. Milton called for an education “that which fi ts a man to perform justly, skillfully, and magnanimously.”27 Locke believed that civilization and citizenship rested on the instruction of the “natural rights of man, and the original foundations of society, and the duties resulting from thence.”28 An “uninstructed citizenship, however willing, can effect but little of permanent value.”29

In America, education for the citizenry began in 1647 with the Massachusetts Bay Colony providing a public school funded by public tax.30 This had no precedent in the world’s history. The Ordinance of 1787 took education to a national level as “religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”31 Education of the citizenry became the foundation of American democracy. The citizen had a dual consciousness of self and society. Education was the tie that bound us together. “Democracy offers me a self and a society, a nation and a soul.”32

The purpose of American education was not just the knowledge but also the practice of democracy as people live together. This was the study and practice of the abstract nature of the democratic spirit, of a deeper spiritual and intellectual preparation for the privileges and duties citizenship places upon us. Citizenship confers individual rights tempered by obligations and duties. It must provide for individuality but also for social solidarity.33 It requires of us mutual understanding, mutual respect, and tolerance. These are the common principles of American citizen education.

“Civics is a subject for the majority, and can be understood by all possessed of common sense; and citizenship can be practiced by all who are animated by a desire for the welfare of the whole.”34 Citizenship education is not passive but active. We are all members and being members, we cannot evade responsibility. We cannot be “superfi cial lookers on, or feeble fault-fi nders, or mental loafers… the competent citizen will endeavor to understand and will discuss and examine without prejudice” proposed reform.35 Citizens must maintain an open-mindedness to inquire and to examine. “Knowledge, interest, discussion, and understanding, however, are insuffi cient unless they lead to defi nite action in some sphere by the student-citizen, for he must fulfi ll the duties as well as receive the benefi ts.”36 It should be education for service, education for the spontaneous cooperation of a citizen to promote humane feeling, rational thinking, and helpful collective action and reform.37

115

terms of a standard 65

• oligarchy: a small group of people having control of a state 66

• science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment 67

Study 1: Content AnalysisA content analysis is a procedural method to identify relevant themes and elements through a review of literature concerning the concept of our inquiry. We analyze the content. 38

We were looking for the values depicted as attitudes, skills, and abilities of citizen education. Specifi c knowl-edge was not important for our study. These would become our “espoused values.” A literature review and a painful and laborious manual content analysis was conducted.39 Seven dimensions were identifi ed throughout the review. The most prevalent value recurring throughout the literature was the concept of civic virtue; iden-tifi cation and commitment through willful, active participation. Civic virtue would become our commitment through identifi cation variable in our trust model from Topic 4. Identifi cation with group work role, the organi-zation, and community.

There are three learning domains.44

* The cognitive domain concerns mental or intellectual skills and abilities.45 The cognitive objectives of citizen education give individuals the skills to communicate, the knowledge of process and product to become highly informed, and the judgement in sound and logical thinking.46

* The affective domain concerns the emotional or social skills and abilities.47 The affective or social objectives of citizen education give individuals: a sense of belonging to a social group, a zest for cooperation, a developed dependability, a devotion to justice, a high level of altruism, a respect for personality, and integrity devoted to a high ideal where personal interests, motives, and values are subordinated to the common good.48 Democracies demand self-discipline and education develops these habits and dispositions of character.

* The psychomotor domain concerns the manipulative or motor skills and abilities.49 It is interesting to note that the seven dimensions include values from the cognitive and affective domains but not the psychomotor do-main. This makes sense in that neither brawn nor fi ne motor, tactile skills and abilities is a necessary condition or requirement to be a citizen. It is also not a universal criterion to practice professionalism. Psychomotor skills and abilities may be thought of as occupation specifi c and not generalized across all occupations.

The result is a generalized model not specialized by occupational particularities of a certain occupation. Using Bloom, Krathwohl, and Masia’s taxonomy of learning domains and educational objectives, specifi c skills and abilities were identifi ed within the seven value dimensions and indices were created.50

Civitas: A Framework for Civic Education provided the most comprehensive set of citizen dimensions. It included the majority of attitudes, skills, and abilities identifi ed in the literature review. Civitas was the direct result of a collaborative effort by The Center for Civic Education. This organization is a non-profi t, nonpar-tisan educational corporation dedicated to promoting an enlightened and responsible citizenry committed to democratic principles.40 It is involved in the research, development, and implementation of civic education programs at the elementary and secondary education levels. A collaborative project resulted in a curriculum framework developed by scholars, public leaders, and professional educators for students in the elementary and secondary grades. The goal was to establish “a solid intellectual and scholarly grounding for civic educa-tion in the schools, propose a common core of knowledge, values, and skills.”41 Civitas: A Framework for Civic Education was the direct result of this collaborative effort in 1991 and “sought to defi ne the behavior of civility befi tting a citizen’s competence, skills, and commitments to participate… required for the public good of a democratic society.”42 The lower elementary grades model scope and sequence was used as our criterion standard and more fully developed into citizen values for this study.43

116

Professionalism 101 encompasses: seven first-order value dimensions, twenty-six second-order qualities, and twenty-four third-order qualities.

The 7 dimensions of espoused values:

1 Identification and commitment (civic virtue)2 Acquire information3 Use information4 Involvement5 Decision-making6 Communication7 Cooperation

117

1. Identifi cation & Commitment (civic virtue)Identify with group (work role)

Respond choose to respond in an ethical professional mannerCommitment express commitment to the adopted values

Identify with organizationPride proud to be working for the organizationEffort willing to put great effort beyond normally expected for the

success of the organizationValues fi nd similarity in their personal values and the values of the

organizationIdentify with community

Volunteerism volunteer to help others outside the organizationActive active in the communityAttentive attentive to what is happening in the communityDemocratic ideals

committed to the values and attitudes that are conducive to the healthy functioning of a democratic society

2. Acquire InformationReading read pertinent printed documents

Listening listen to knowledgeable individuals

Observing observe knowledgeable individuals

All InformationSupport supports their positionNon-Support does not support, opposes, or undermines their position

Dimensions of espoused values:

118

3. Use InformationSource identify the source of the information

Question ask questions to clarify the information

Discriminate discriminate between objective facts and subjective opinions

ProcessKnowledge to identify and recall factsComprehension to summarize and interpretApplication to construct and fi nd solutions to problemsAnalysis to analyze and differentiateSynthesis to combine and synthesize into new informationEvaluation to appraise and evaluate

4. InvolvementAttending

Willingness show a willingness to communicate with respectSensitiveness sensitive to individual differences

RespondingConsequences identify the consequences for non-involvement or

non-action

Rights / Responsibilities Balance

recognize the need for a balance between individual rights and responsible behavior

Self-reliance show self-reliance when working independently

119

5. Decision-makingComparison make responsible decisions by comparing the alternatives

MoralsAcceptable ways

choose to respond in acceptable ways

Ethical practice display a commitment to ethical practice on a daily basisValues express a commitment to personal values

Integrity accept responsibility for one’s own behavior

6. CommunicationOrganize compile and organize information into understandable

ideasSpeak communicate by speaking clearly

Write communicate by writing to clarify important points

Action act and follow through upon decisions

7. CooperationWillingness show a willingness to cooperate

Active discussant are active participants in discussions

Manage confl ict show the ability to solve problems and manage confl icts

Defend & explain defend and explain important points and alternatives

Accept decisions accepting of the agreed upon decisions

120

Study 2: EthnographyAn ethnographic study is a descriptive procedural method to study a culture based on direct observation or fi eld work and some degree of participation. 51

Medical school is a four-year program. After medical school and award of a doctorate degree, the new “resident” practices under the supervision of a fully licensed physician. The fi rst two years of medical school are primarily lecture and presentation where they acquire a basic knowledge of “everything for application when they see patients.” It is interspersed with patient histories and physical exams. The third year, the school integrates patients early on into the curriculum. “Grand rounds” occur during this and the fourth year of medical school through clinical rotations in the hospital with the attending physician and the resident physicians as we have seen on television programs.

After the development of the seven dimensions of espoused values, an additional qualitative study was con-ducted to further ground citizen values with professionalism. Think of it as a gun with only so many bullets to fi re. Before you pull the trigger, you want to take careful aim to make every bullet count. We wanted to confi rm or invalidate our dimensions. To do this, an observation with interview study was conducted in the medical school of a large Midwestern university. This was an examination of the professional value dimen-sions of medical students as they proceed through the professionalization process. Surface observations were augmented with open-structured interviews to examine at greater depth the presence or absence of our dimensions. This study was conducted over several months. Several of our indicators were almost impos-sible to observe and the interviews were extremely helpful in explaining and adding greater clarity to the dimensions.

Some of the students have had to adjust the way they did things. What had previously led to success as an undergraduate has changed. The rigors of medical school present the student with a lot of information to process. Multitudes of information must be devoured and retained. The most prevalent observation during the study was the amount of cooperation that existed among the medical students. As was noted by Becker decades earlier, it is a “community of fate, for however individualistic their motives, they share goals, a body of crucial experiences, and exposure to the same perils.”52 There is very little competition although some students work hard to gain honors. During an interview, it was mentioned that there will always be “gunners” or students working for high honors.

The observation and interviews of the medical students that were conducted supports and verifi ed our seven dimensions and indicators. The medical students affi rmed and exhibited all seven of the espoused dimen-sions that we had identifi ed as they proceed through the professionalization process. It is a continuation of citizen skills education.

121

The professionalization of the medical student is information that leads to knowledge, to understanding, and fi nally to practice. It is students becoming doctors. In a nutshell,

Professional education supports the measures of Professionalism 101.

“Whatever they’ve done to us to make us think this way... it’s starting to happen.” 2nd year medical student

“We get a disease presented from the biochemical perspective, cell biology, anatomy, physiology, now the pathology and then the clinical side... you get the same information presented from a bunch of different angles... and it’s making sense and we’re remembering” 2nd year medical student

����� ���

7 “e�p�u�e� v���e�”

�� P�� es�i�n��i��

101

122

Sources:Adler, Irving. (1957). What We Want of Our Schools: Plain Talk on Education, From Theory to Budgets. New York, New York: The John Day Company.

8, 39

American Psychological Association. (2007). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 51, 53, 55, 57

Bahmueller, Charles F., ed. (1991). Civitas: A Framework for Civic Education. Calabasas, California: Center for Civic Education. 8, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43

Becker, Howard S., Blanche Geer, Everett C. Hughes, and Anselm L. Strauss. (1961). Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 52

Biehler, Robert F. and Jack Snowman. (1990). Psychology Applied to Teaching, 6th edition. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin. 50

Bloom, Benjamin S., ed. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain. New York, New York: David McKay Company. 44,

45, 47, 49, 50

Boggs, David L. (1991). Adult Civic Education. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. 8, 39

Center for Civic Education. (2003). National Standards for Civics and Government. Calabasas, California: Center for Civic Education. 8, 39

Cohen, Bernard P. (1989). Developing Sociological Knowledge: Theory and Method, 2nd edition. Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall. 1, 3

Colby, A., T. Ehrlich, E. Beaumont, and J. Stephens. (2003). Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of Moral and Civic Responsibilities. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 8, 39

Collins, John M. (1998). Geography for Professionals and the Public. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press. 2

Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th edition. (2002). New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 1, 12, 13, 14, 54, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67

Council for Basic Education. (1966). A Decade of Comment on Education: 1956-1966. Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education. 8, 39

Creswell, John W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.10, 51, 62

Dewey, John. (1916/1944). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York, New York: The Free Press. 5, 8, 19, 21, 22,

39

Dewey, John. (1959). Moral Principles in Education. New York, New York: Greenwood Press. 5, 8, 39

Douglass, Harl R. and Calvin Grieder. (1948). American Public Education. New York, New York: The Ronald Press Company. 8, 39

Educational Policies Commission. (1938). The Purposes of Education in American Democracy. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association of the United States. 5, 8, 16, 17, 39

Educational Policies Commission. (1940). Learning the Ways of Democracy: A Case Book of Civic Education. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association of the United States. 8, 16, 17, 39

Elias, Norbert. (2000). The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogentic Investigations, edited by Eric Dunning, Johan Goudsblom, and Stephen Mennell. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. 18

Emerson, Robert M. (2001). Contemporary Field Research: Perspectives and Formulations, 2nd edition. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press. 10, 51, 62

Gardner, Howard. (2000). The Disciplined Mind: Beyond Facts and Standardized Tests, the K-12 Education That Every Child Deserves. New York, New York: Penguin. 5

Glasser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Aldine Transaction. 3

Jacoby, Barbara. (1996). Service-Learning in Higher Education. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 8, 39

Jefferson, Thomas. (1789). Thomas Jefferson on Education, Letter to Richard Price. Available from http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/education.html, (accessed 08 February 2010). 23

Jefferson, Thomas. (1820). Thomas Jefferson on Education, Letter to William Jarvis. Available from http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/education.html, (accessed 08 February 2010). 24

Jefferson, Thomas. (1822). Thomas Jefferson on Education, Letter to C.C. Blatchly. Available from http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/education.html, (accessed 08 February 2010). 25

Kandel, I. L. (1924). Twenty-Five Years of American Education. New York, New York: The MacMillan Company. 8, 39

Kenworthy, Leonard S. (1973). Guide to Social Studies Teaching in Secondary Schools, 4th ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 8,

39

Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook II, Affective Domain. New York, New York: David McKay Company. 44, 45, 47, 49, 50

Maxwell, Joseph A. (2005). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 10, 51

Ober, Josiah. (2007). The Original Meaning of Democracy: Capacity to Do Things, Not Majority Rule. Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics Paper No. 090704. Available at SSRN. 11, 13

Ozmon, Howard A. and Samuel M. Craver. (1990). Philosophical Foundations of Education, 4th edition. New York, New York: Macmillan. 5

Report of the Harvard Committee. (1945). General Education in a Free Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 8, 39

Sharp, Dallas Lore. (1922). Education in a Democracy. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 8, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39

Small, Albion W. and George E. Vincent. (1922). An Introduction to the Study of Society. New York, New York: American Book Company. 8, 39

Smith, Adam. (1759/2004). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing. 63

Steiner-Khamsi, G., J. Torney-Purta, and J. Schwille, eds. (2002). An Introduction to the Study of Society. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. 8, 39

Thurston, Henry W. (1946). The Education of Youth as Citizens. New York, New York: Richard R. Smith. 6, 7, 8, 20, 39, 56

Valentine, P. F. (1946). Twentieth Century Education. New York, New York: Philosophical Library. 8, 39, 46, 48

Weber, Robert Philip. (1990). Basic Content Analysis, 2nd edition. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publication. 9, 38, 58

White, E. M. (1921). The Philosophy of Citizenship: An Introduction to Civics for Adults. London, England: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. 8, 39

White, E. M. (1923). The Teaching of Modern Civics. London, England: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd. 4, 8, 15, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39

213

let’s light this candle.In a nutshell, this book is about organizational culture, a culture of professionalism and exceptional performance. The purpose

of this book derived from witnessing exceptional firefighters working together to produce spectacular results at my first house fire over thirty years ago and my desire to be like them. I realized early on through the socialization process that it wasn’t

about my performance but about our performance. Organizational culture is a phenomenon that surrounds us in our work lives. It’s created, developed, manipulated, managed, and changed. It’s an ongoing dynamic process enacted and created through our ongoing interactions with others.1 Organizational culture decreases uncertainty and increases stability.2 Culture encompasses shared beliefs that are based on a deeply embedded, unconscious, set of basic assumptions that tell us what to pay attention to, what things mean, how to react emotionally, and what actions to take in different types of situations.3 This gives us comfort and acts as a cognitive defense mechanism. Culture derives its power through the fact that these basic assumptions are shared and therefore, mutually reinforced. They become taken-for-granted and become a defining property of the group. In this process, value is attached to these assumptions; we develop an emotional attachment to them.4 Organizational culture comprises social, cognitive, and behavioral values.5 These values are the objects, qualities, standards, and expectations that guide our behavior and actions.6 As they continue to work, they become an articulated set of beliefs, norms, and rules for behavior. They serve to bring members together and act as a source of identity; they become espoused values and justify our behaviors.7 A culture based on professionalism and exceptional performance is more alluring than the Golden Fleece to your average Argonaut.

In Section 1, Beginnings, we examined a cultural framework that developed from the Total Quality Management and empower-ment movement in the 1990’s. This culture of “we only do cool” and “don’t be stupid” left us with a question less understood in our model. It concerned the idea of professionalism and the elements that build trust in our performance. We also examined the high cost of accepting “good enough” or adequate work performance. When we took a look at professionalism, it wasn’t what we had expected and it was inadequate in answering the question in our model. This left it ripe for re-defining. In the next topic, we re-defined professionalism as “espoused values-in-practice” based on trust.

In Section 2, Groundwork, we laid out some groundwork and presented several elements and concepts of the environment in which exceptional performance may exist. We looked at personal character and examined how work organizations are complex systems of interrelationships. We also looked at how work has changed over the years. Leadership was examined and how pro-fessionals practice self-leadership. Several models and images of homo sapiens were presented and we created, developed, and introduced you to a new type of man, homo professio or Professional Man that is unlike others.

In the last section, Section 3 Professionalism 101, we generated and developed seven specific dimensions or qualities to examine and measure professionalism as espoused values-in-practice. We gave it a new name, Professionalism101, to distinguish it from the previous concept of professionalism. It is a generalized model of professionalism across all occupations and it is based on trust. We measured or quantified our seven dimensions of Professionalism101 and found that there is reason to trust professionals but there exists great room for improvement. In the last topic, we presented several techniques and tools that may assist in build-ing trust using our seven dimensions. This requires a new mind-set; a change from task work to talent work. The ongoing devel-opment of exceptional personal talent developed from our Professionalism101 model earns the trust of others in our performance.

In our work lives, we are confronted by uncertainty and risk.8 We attempt to create order and make sense of what is confront-ing us. The goal of this book was two-fold. First, for individuals, the WHAT and the HOW for the practitioner who desires to develop their personal talent in the commitment, knowledge, skills, abilities, and action required for exceptional performance. You should ask yourself two things. “Do other people have great trust in your performance?” And “Why should they?” second, for groups and organizations who desire to create a culture of highly talented individuals for optimal organizational performance. Design a sustainable work experience where people want to belong. Establish broad boundaries (structure) for individual talent (process) through the development

• of a constructive, not destructive culture, • in a collaborative, not competitive environment• of mature, not childish, • professional, not amateurish, • talented, not feeble or stupid colleagues • who utilize their unique exceptional talent • for self-motivated, autonomous work required for optimal organizational performance.

The question for you is, “Will your talented people run for the doors when given the opportunity or will talent clamor to get in?”

While some people say there is a need for a better mousetrap, the real need is for a dead mouse; that‘s the ultimate goal. This book is what professionalism is and how to practice professionalism that results in exceptional performance. It, in a sense, is a dead mouse; a new paradigm or model of “talent” work that’s sustainable and transferable.

214

So, where do we begin?

Beginnings• Cool is the strong focus on inputs.• Cool is building on the rock-solid foundation of a civil society.• Cool is the possession of a robust integrity to do what is right and just.• Cool is tightly integrating the soft systems with the hard sys-tems.• Cool is designing for high reliability to manage the unexpected.• Cool is the creation of a group culture of shared expectations of right behavior.• Cool is concentrating on each dimension of organizational culture.• Cool is building a strong constructive culture with high positive outcomes.• Cool is establishing broad boundaries for individual behavior in a loose-tight symbiosis.• “We only do cool” as a totem, our DNA.• A workstyle of trust, personal character, and volition.

• Individuals that do stupid are normless, in a state of anomie.• Greedy and/or fearful individuals do stupid.• Stupid individuals are free-riders.• Stupid individuals are 2nd order free-riders who do not punish free-riders.• Stupid individuals shirk their responsibilities and are social loafers.• Ignorant individuals do stupid.• Stupid individuals are unskilled and unabled.• A BIG problem arises when stupidity becomes institutionalized and isomorphic.

“���� d� co��”

d��’� “��”

s���i�

“The only people for me...burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes `Awww!” Jack Kerouac, On the Road 9

215

• Adequacy is NOT developing and maintaining a constructive culture of high standards and high expectations for individual performance.• A bell curve is a graphic image of the normal distribution of individual performance• Cost factor 1: Adequacy fails to realize gains in individual productivity.• Cost factor 2: Adequacy “suffers fools gladly” (tolerates stupid-ity).• Cost factor 3: Ignoring engagement and productivity issues puts organizations at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to organizational performance.• Professionalism denotes high standards and high expecta-tions, not amateurish or novice performance.

• Let’s break it down. What the word “professionalism” should mean.• Academic studies of professionalism focus more on the char-acteristics and attitudes of an occupational group and not the specifi c qualities or measures of their individual practice.• The single property that separates the professional from all other occupational groups is education.• Professional work autonomy is in direct contrast to the iron cage of bureaucracy.• Work organizations require a delicate, synergistic balance between structure and talent for the development of trust.

• Trust is the social lubricant that facilitates effi cient and effective work practices.• Professionalism based on trust has several parallels of sup-port.• Trust encompasses 4 elements and 3 dimensions.• Professionalism is the “espoused values-in-practice” of a per-son based on: commitment, knowledge, skills, ability, and action.• Trust reduces social complexity and produces social order.• Trust evolves with personal interactions.• Trust is situation-specifi c.• Professionalism is not a one-trick pony.• When trust is grounded in professionalism, it minimizes per-sonal diversity biases.• Managerial and organizational behaviors impact trust.• The 7 Cardinal Principles of trust.• Punctuate your workstyle with professionalism.

r�i�� ��� b��, �n�i��

�i�� st�nd�rd� �n� �i��

���ecta�i�n�

��� es�i�n��i�� �h��l� �� ba�e�

�� ��us� �� ��� �u��i��

� � ��rs��’� �rac�i��

e��� ��� �i�h� t� �� ��us�e�

216

• You are not that special. Get over yourself!• An organization’s culture oftentimes fosters egocentric conduct and behaviors.• Moral character is the alternative to egocentrism.• Character strengths and virtues• You can choose one of two options.

• All work organizations share several common interacting ele-ments.• Work organizations may be thought of as collectivities of par-ticipants contributing as whole persons within social structures utilizing technologies to attain desired organizational goals inside a larger societal environment.• Work organizations as “machines.”• Work organizations as “organisms.”• Work organizations as “brains.”

• Goods producing work has decreased and service providing work has increased over the last 50 years.• The characteristics of the people who do the work is more diverse.• Automation, information technology, and globalization have changed the nature of our work requirements.• The management of the work has evolved from primitive forms to more mature forms of management.• Today’s work requires knowledgeable individuals with unique capabilities and characteristics.• Work is important to us as humans by providing us with psy-chological and social well-being.• The alignment of individual needs and organizational goals creates a deeper commitment and stronger identifi cation with the work.• Job characteristics have changed to increase worker motiva-tion, satisfaction, and performance.• Cognitive ability and several affective personality traits are strong predictors of individual work performance.

Groundwork

w��� �i��n����

�h�rac���

w��� �rg���za�i�n� ���

c������ �n�����la�i�n���p�

tod��’� w��� �e����e� �n���i�u�l� �i�� v���e�

�h� ��� ��ea����, �i���� �n���ed�e����,

�n� po� es� s�r�n� co��i���� �n� so�i��

����l�

217

• Effective leadership is an individual’s ability to infl uence posi-tive outcomes.• There is a moral / ethical aspect to leadership conduct and character.• Leadership “styles” occur along a continuum.• Professionals are self-motivated, autonomous workers who practice self-control, self-regulation, i.e., “self-leadership” in a constructive culture of a mature collegial work environment.• Several conditions foster self-leadership.• Professionals develop higher-order self-infl uence competen-cies to regulate their conduct and actions.• Professional and self-leadership talent becomes sources of organizational competitive advantage.

• Homo sapiens has a much more evolved and mature brain than other vertabraic animals.• Human behavior and actions are more directly infl uenced by our emotions than by our rationality.• Different areas of the human brain are responsible for different functions that may operate separately or together.• Different types of homo sapiens are infl uenced by different emotions.• Professional Man demonstrates higher-order brain functionality and is that ancient and elusive “sweet spot” that exists between the “I” (freedom, liberty) and the “we” (social norms).• Professional Man delivers exceptional performance.• There is a moral aspect to homo sapiens within work organiza-tions and society.• We feel anger and contempt for the hubris of homo economic-us.• When values and norms are not made salient, important, and obvious to individuals, homo sapiens may become deviant ras-cals that reject the goals and/or the means to attain those goals.

��� es�i�n�l� �rac�i��

��l�-�ea��r����

P�� es�i�n�� M�� u�����e� �i�

�n���� �r��� t� �������

�x��p�i�n�� ��rf��m�n��

218

Professionalism101

����� ��� 7

“e�p�u�e� v���e�” ��

P�� es�i�n��i��101

• Professionalism101 is based on the values and skills of an educated citizenry.• Professionalism101 encompasses:

seven fi rst-order value dimensions, twenty-six second-order qualities, and twenty-four third-order qualities.

• Dimensions of espoused values: 1. identifi cation and commitment2. acquire information3. use information4. involvement5. decision-making6. communication7. cooperation

• Professional education supports the measures of Professional-ism101.

• Professionalism101 is an index of “espoused values-in-prac-tice.”• The Professionalism101 Index is normally distributed across all occupations.• The Professionalism101 Index is highly reliable.• The 7 dimensions of the Professionalism101 Index are positive and statistically correlated.• The Professionalism101 Index provides a valid measure of professionalism in a generalized model.• Professionals score higher on the Professionalism101 Index than either semi-professionals or non-professionals.• By simple deliberate practice, individuals can generate greater trust.• If professionalism is based on trust and professionalism increases with high work autonomy, then it would seem that the key to professionalism and trust is to create the conditions for professional work autonomy or “talent work.”

P�� es�i�n��i��101

i�“e�p�u�e� v���e�-

��-�rac�i�� .”

219

����l�� y��� t���n� t� e��� ��� ��us� �

� ��r�

• Professionalism101 is espoused values-in-practice based on trust through an individual’s:

commitment, knowledge, skills, abilities, and action; their personal talent.

• Turn up your personal talent to earn the trust of others.

• Internalized, shared values (espoused values) are the drivers of trust between people.

• “Uber” pro.

• Go big or go home.

• The dog ate my homework.

• Your baby is ugly.

• The human brain as a “muscle” that requires development and training.

• “Talentize” your lid.

• Being stupid makes you really stupid.

• Individuals, who deliberately practice with volition the shared values, earn the trust of others.

• What the hell was that?

• Check the cap.

• Individuals, who are committed to the shared values, earn the trust of others.

• Individuals, who develop and practice their personal cognitive talent, earn the trust of others.

• Warning! Beware of cognitive dissonance.

• OODA loop your lid.

• Warning! Beware of groupthink.

• Individuals, who develop and practice their personal affective/social talent, earn the trust of others.

• Stop bitching and communicate.

• Don’t beat me like a rented mule.

• Fish or cut bait.

¨

220

Sources:Ashkanasy, Neal M., Celeste P.M. Wilderom, and Mark F. Peterson, eds. (2000). Handbook of

Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. 5, 6

Kerouac, Jack. (1957/1991). On the Road. New York, New York: Penguin. 9

Kramer, Michael W. (2010). Organizational Socialization: Joining and Leaving Organizations. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity. 8

Schein, Edgar H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7