Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey coin the term "Deconstructive Criticism" in their 2001 book "Seven Languages for Transformation" (Josey Bass, Wiley, San Francisco).
They contrast the traditional modes of criticism of employees ("constructive" and "destructive") with this new mode of "deconstructive" by saying that traditional forms of criticism have an in-built assumption of holding the only true view of the situation (pp121ff). That is, the traditional forms of criticism, whether intended to tear down or build up, come from the perspective that there is one right view and that the supervisor holds it. They call this the "super-vision" assumption.
Deconstructive criticism allows that the supervisor's perspective may be legitimate, but also might not be. It allows for the possibility that the employee's view may also be valid (after all, she is closer to the situation).
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Obliquity - a definition
This 1998 Financial Times article by John Kay is the first time I think the principle of "Obliquity" gets explicitly defined.
Obliquity is the idea that if you aim for something (usually self-interested like profit or happiness) you'll miss. But if you aim for something else, more "nobler", outside yourself, you'll get the first thing thrown in too. So, aim to be happy, and you'll likely end up dissatisfied. But aim to love others and seek their good - and you'll find happiness too. This article quotes John Stuart Mill:
“Those only are happy who have their minds tried on some object other than their own happiness – on the happiness of others, on the improvement of mankind, even on some art or pursuit, followed not as a means, but as itself an ideal end. Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness by the way.”
The principle also applies to profits. The article quotes "Built to Last" by Collins and Porras, where the most successful companies in their paired study were not the ones who pursued profit solely. Rather: “They have tended to pursue a cluster of objectives, of which making money is only one – and not necessarily the primary one”. (page 55)
Obliquity is the idea that if you aim for something (usually self-interested like profit or happiness) you'll miss. But if you aim for something else, more "nobler", outside yourself, you'll get the first thing thrown in too. So, aim to be happy, and you'll likely end up dissatisfied. But aim to love others and seek their good - and you'll find happiness too. This article quotes John Stuart Mill:
“Those only are happy who have their minds tried on some object other than their own happiness – on the happiness of others, on the improvement of mankind, even on some art or pursuit, followed not as a means, but as itself an ideal end. Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness by the way.”
The principle also applies to profits. The article quotes "Built to Last" by Collins and Porras, where the most successful companies in their paired study were not the ones who pursued profit solely. Rather: “They have tended to pursue a cluster of objectives, of which making money is only one – and not necessarily the primary one”. (page 55)
Lessons from 9/11: How conversations can galvanize others to act
This is an interesting piece from Knowledge@Emory about an article submitted to the journal Organisational Science , by Monica Worline and Ryan Quinn. The article describes how conversations can create a space for people to take courageous action - and even overcome the "Kitty Genovese effect". The key conclusion is: "people do things in conversations with others that create psychological resources that allow them to act in difficult situations".
The article looks at the behaviour of passengers aboard Flight 93, and what spurred them to take action. The authors point out that it was in fact unusual for the passengers to take any action at all - because up until then passengers in a hijacked aircraft were just seen as passive "pawns". The critical factor in the passengers taking action was their engagement in conversation beforehand. The article contends that one of the main ways conversation helped the passengers was to make the uncertainty of the situation manageable:
"In the end, it is not entirely clear that everyone knew or believed the plane was going down. There was debate aboard the plane about whether it was a suicide hijacking or not. The passengers ultimately decided that it was worth an attempt to take control of the plane and try to land it, despite the uncertainty, notes Worline. “In the Kitty Genovese case there also was uncertainty about what exactly was happening, which tended to paralyze people and stop them from taking action to address the situation. In our paper, we show that interpersonal dynamics and conversational resources made the uncertainty manageable enough so that the passengers could act.""
The article looks at the behaviour of passengers aboard Flight 93, and what spurred them to take action. The authors point out that it was in fact unusual for the passengers to take any action at all - because up until then passengers in a hijacked aircraft were just seen as passive "pawns". The critical factor in the passengers taking action was their engagement in conversation beforehand. The article contends that one of the main ways conversation helped the passengers was to make the uncertainty of the situation manageable:
"In the end, it is not entirely clear that everyone knew or believed the plane was going down. There was debate aboard the plane about whether it was a suicide hijacking or not. The passengers ultimately decided that it was worth an attempt to take control of the plane and try to land it, despite the uncertainty, notes Worline. “In the Kitty Genovese case there also was uncertainty about what exactly was happening, which tended to paralyze people and stop them from taking action to address the situation. In our paper, we show that interpersonal dynamics and conversational resources made the uncertainty manageable enough so that the passengers could act.""
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
