Organization Theory
Leadership Insight
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn described how the tradition
aspiring scientists are typically introduced to and formed by has unwittingly
constrained their ability to think beyond the theories mediated by the tradition
received as well as by the tradition itself. Trained to replicate what is known,
disciplinary canons stymie unfettered inquiry into what is knowable.
Kuhn’s potent critique challenges those inquiring into organizations and
leadership to consider how the tradition they have received has functioned to
constrain them from developing insight into what is knowable but as of yet
remains unknown about successful practice. As a consequence, inquiry
historically has been limited to grappling with the problems—the facts—that have
kept organizations from achieving their purposes. This excessive focus—
transforming a dynamic tradition into a static canon—has made it all but
impossible for aspiring leaders to grapple with the basic issues—those
fundamental conflicts of values—at the heart of most dilemmas of practice.
While problems more oftentimes than not distract leaders, conflicts of values are
what leaders contend with routinely.
What is insight and how might it be stimulated by inquiring into leadership and its
successful practice? To respond to that question, a foray into the realm of
philosophy and theology offers MPA 8002 students an unorthodox, yet
intellectually challenging approach.
The Canadian Jesuit philosopher, Bernard Lonergan, argued that the goal of
research is for scholars to get behind all of the words, concepts, and judgments
which comprise the tradition received in an appeal to intelligence which is formed
through the interaction of understanding, science, and wisdom. To orient
students to this methodology, we will consider the paradigm Lonergan posited
that consists of nine sequential elements which originate in subjectivity—the
personal interest spurring research—and terminate in objectivity. These
elements include: 1) questioning; 2) thinking; 3) formulating; 4) testing; 5)
judging; 6) evaluating; 7) self-affirmation; 8) being; and, lastly, 9) objectivity.
Before considering each operation individually, recall Lonergan’s goal: to
integrate subjectivity and objectivity through intellectual inquiry. Research into
organizations and leadership is not an exercise whereby women and men
engage study these phenomena objectively. No, research begins with
subjectivity—the questions that those who are researching organizations and
leadership have—and ends in objectivity—the ability for these women and men
to be leaders.
MPA 8002 Organization Theory
-2-
1. Questioning
For Lonergan, research begins with questioning—asking “What is this?”— an
intellectual activity that requires aspiring leaders to study the data of human
experience contained in the tradition received. But that is not all! Research also
requires aspiring leaders to ask even more penetrating questions of the data
contained in the tradition received from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. To
wit, Lonergan noted, the natural sciences ask: “Are these mere data?” and the
social sciences ask: “Are these meaningful data?” while philosophy and theology
ask: “Are these true meanings?” As aspiring leaders question data by using this
multi-disciplinary approach, scholarly traditions are received, known, and
understood in their richness.
2. Thinking
Thinking involves “taking a good look at” the entirety of the tradition bequeathed
to the present generation of researchers by their forbears. Because the tradition
emerged as researchers vigorously questioned the data of human experience
using the tools afforded by a multi-disciplinary approach to their inquiry, the
tradition received is not a static body of information, a canon “decided” once and
for all. No, the tradition received is much more dynamic in that its contents need
to be thought about not only for what it is—what the tradition conveys as
known—as well as studied anew for what has yet to be grasped—what is
knowable.
For aspiring leaders, thinking challenges them to study the tradition received, the
“canon” of leadership theory and practice and to press beyond the more
comfortable confines of knowing and understanding the tradition—where
intellectual toil frequently ends all too precipitously—and into the less
comfortable confines—where intellectual toil really begins—of determining
whether the meanings associated with the tradition continue to be meaningful,
that is, by thinking about how they might resolve the dilemma embedded within
the data.
3. Formulating
Formulating is an unconditioned reflective grasp which, Lonergan asserted, is
the constitutive factor in knowing. Formulating precedes yet determines truth as
aspiring leaders press beyond what is known and inquire into what is knowable.
The intellectual activity of formulating, then, represents a subjective
achievement—that of radical intellectual conversion—through which aspiring
leaders discover in themselves previously experienced mental operations as well
as the dynamism that leads from one type of self-understanding to another.
MPA 8002 Organization Theory
-3-
Possessing respect for the development of the tradition, aspiring leaders learn to
feel comfortable as they “play with” what is known and as they take their first
tentative steps to inquire beyond the known and into the knowable. In this way,
aspiring leaders develop self-understanding as they moved around within the
tradition while also becoming capable of thinking on their own in more
independent and creative ways beyond the tradition. Aspiring leaders would
know the “story” of organizations and leadership yet their inquiry would be
neither constrained nor stymied by it.
4. Testing
Testing requires aspiring leaders to replicate what is known so as to establish its
continuing validity or to determine its limitations and/or failures. Unless tested,
aspiring leaders may propound the tradition in many useful and quite interesting
ways. But, they will not have made the all-crucial attempt to determine its
continuing validity, thus stifling the development of inquiry into what is knowable.
In truth, if aspiring leaders would learn to formulate and test—to engage in a
much more rigorous and demanding intellectual effort—they would save a lot of
time, money, and frustration having learned that many of the elixirs promoted
within the tradition received have proven themselves to be nothing more than
snake’s oil.
5. Judging
The fifth sequential element, judging, requires aspiring leaders to “define history,”
which is to say, to conclude whether the data and their meaning convey a truth
(that is, a “first in itself”) or a discovery (that is, a “first for the aspiring leader”).
Developing judgment marks a laudatory achievement for at least two reasons.
First, aspiring leaders are strengthening their intellectual powers to inquire into
and beyond the tradition, a goal of utmost importance if leaders are to resolve
the values conflicts that give rise to the types of dilemmas leaders typically
confront. Second, aspiring leaders are inculcating the virtue of humility within
themselves as they learn to value the truths posited in previous generations and
to judge their efficacy for solving the problems of professional practice in this
generation.
6. Evaluating
Evaluating requires a scholar to “know what one sees” rather than to “see what
one knows,” a distinction posited by the Jewish biblical scholar, Abraham
Heschel (2001), in his discussion concerning the role of prophecy in ancient
Judaism.
MPA 8002 Organization Theory
-4-
Evaluating is an important intellectual capability, especially for leaders. Building
upon the virtue of humility, evaluating requires leaders to value knowing what
they see more than seeing what they know. The ability to discern “what is” then
assists leaders to identify the assumptions implicit in the tradition received so
that leaders can articulate their personal stance vis-à-vis the validity of the
tradition for the idiosyncratic situation in which they find themselves. Lastly,
leaders would make decisions for which they would bear personal responsibility.
Armed with this intellectual formation, leaders would be capable of transforming
“managerial practice”—seeing what they know—into “ethical leadership”—
knowing what they see and doing something about it, for which they would bear
personal responsibility. These women and men would provide a prophetic voice
in their organizations—perhaps a “voice in the wilderness”—who would identify
the values conflicts confronting their followers, possess the courage to challenge
these women and men to resolve their conflicts, and assist them to identify and
implement a pathway toward this goal.
7. Self-Affirmation
Self-affirmation builds upon and extends the intellectual work that lies beyond
evaluation in that aspiring leaders are seeking personal fulfillment in what they
understand to be meaningful and true, all of which takes root in, bespeaks, and
is reflected in one’s character. What aspiring leaders learn is not a body of sterile
and objective information existing somewhere “out there” that is to be
implemented in a rote and routine fashion or imposed like a template upon their
organizations. What is learned is a living and dynamic body of intelligence
existing somewhere “in here” that gives expression to and affirms aspiring
leaders once they being immersing themselves directly in solving the problems
and dilemmas of practice.
8. Being
The subjectivity implicit in self-affirmation sets the stage for or finds its
culmination in what could be called “way of life” or what Lonergan termed “being”
for aspiring leaders. In the way leaders conduct themselves, they represent or
witness the value, importance, and ultimate purposes of the enterprise to which
they have devoted themselves and through which they have experienced and
continue to experience great personal meaning and fulfillment as well.
But, this is not all.
MPA 8002 Organization Theory
-5-
In this way, who one is—a leader’s “being”—provides the substantive foundation
for what one is and what one does. “Being,” then, is not subjective in the
restricted sense that it turns a leader’s sights inwards or is self-defined. In fact,
this conception of being raises a leader’s sights beyond any narrow
preoccupation with oneself, namely, with what one is—a leader—and what one
does—leads. Why one does what one does animates one’s being.
A leader’s being, then, exhibits decorum in that a code—albeit an unwritten
code—governs one’s conduct as one questions, thinks, formulates, tests, judges,
evaluates, and experiences self-affirmation through all of one’s endeavors.
These characteristics, then, bespeak a code which the leader has internalized
and personalized, not social etiquette changed or adapted for particular
situations or under particular circumstances because one is vain or seeks earthly
praise or glory. This code governs one’s conduct not because it is imposed
externally upon a leader but precisely because one’s being has been
transformed as a leader engages leadership.
Leadership decorum requires a person who exudes a profound sense of humility
because the love of the meaningful and true is one’s guide. Humility reins in any
excess of pride. Leadership decorum, then, is comprised of three dimensions:
the objective, subjective, and communal.
Aspiring leaders one day will witness to the tradition learned as part of their
training programs. Conversant with this tradition, aspiring leaders will bring
theory and skill to bear and, especially through the decision-making process, will
allow insight to guide them not only in making determinations about how theory
and skill are to be implemented but also as they reveal through their being the
particular qualities of professionalism required. All of this specifies the content
defining the objective dimension of leadership decorum.
Yet, aspiring leaders will also be “human beings” and each in one’s own
idiosyncratic way will represent and witness only to the scholarly tradition but
also to the reality of being human. In practice episodes, and again especially
through the decision-making process, aspiring leaders will reveal qualities of
personal character that will remind others and can challenge them to a higher
standard of “being.” Whether it followers, fellow administrators, technical and
support staff, or people external to the organization, the qualities of personal
character revealed as they lead does influence people, for better or worse. All of
this specifies the content defining the subjective dimension of leadership
decorum.
MPA 8002 Organization Theory
-6-
In addition, stakeholders inside and outside of the organization have various
perceptions regarding how they believe leaders should act inside of their
organizations (and, perhaps, outside of them as well). While the content of these
perceptions might vary, it is likely that all stakeholders expect leaders to act
virtuously. It is in this sense, then, that stakeholders expect leaders to be
professional, to possess high standards of professional and personal ethics, and
to be fair-minded. Furthermore, stakeholders judge leaders against these
perceptions which provide the content defining the communal dimension of
leadership decorum.
In the way aspiring leaders will conduct themselves—in their “being”—they will
evidence leadership decorum in its objective, subjective, and communal
dimensions. They will not be expected to know everything, but they will be
expected to know and enact what it means to be a leader in its professional,
personal, and communal dimensions in the sense that leaders represent and
witness in their being to the purposes for which their organizations exist.
9. Objectivity
Objectivity denotes a very precise reality, namely, the assertion that a finding that
is as free from subjective influence as is humanly possible.
For aspiring leaders, developing objectivity is an important goal that, when
achieved, reveals the intellectual process of questioning, thinking about,
formulating, testing, judging and evaluating the data of the tradition received
but—like scholars—only after aspiring leaders experience self-affirmation and as
their “being” reveals the transformation effected in them by the tradition received.
Objectivity evidences itself in practice episodes as leaders do not fall prey to the
temptation of adopting what’s “new” and the “novel” simply because it is new and
novel.
Objectivity will evidence itself as the virtue of humility informs leadership practice.
That is, leaders not only respect the tradition received—what is known— but also
do not allow it to function as an ideology constraining the power of insight so that
leaders fear the unknown—making it synonymous with what is knowable.
Instead, humility makes it possible for leaders in practice episodes to “look
back”—to the known—and to “look forward”—to the knowable and to discern
what is needed.
MPA 8002 Organization Theory
-7-
Thus, objectivity makes it possible for leaders to speak with authority regarding
the terrain one’s discipline has traversed—the “what is known”—and the terrain
yet to be traversed—the “what is knowable.” In addition, leaders speak with
authority concerning what is meaningful and true about the tradition received—
those “first in itself” discoveries—and its limitations as well—those mistaken
“firsts for oneself.” Because leaders have inquired into and beyond the tradition,
they exhibit decorum and speak with authority as well as a prophetic voice to
challenge others “to see what they know” rather than simply “to know what they
see.” This is how leaders enable others to make the purposes of the
organization their own.
Insight, aspiring leaders, and ethical leadership...
So, what is insight and what may be its role in leadership and its successful
practice?
Technically, insight is the intellectual power to think about organizations as
questioning, thinking, formulating, testing, judging, and evaluating which builds
upon, extends, and perfects intellectual history and, in this case, the builds upon,
extends, and perfects content of leadership both in theory and in practice—in a
leader’s self-affirmation, being, and objectivity. Invoking the metaphor of a
continuously turning wheel, Lonergan explains that the process of leadership is
continuous, involving experience, insight, and choice.
Crucial to achieving insight is the leader’s understanding that intelligence is not
something sought—as if intelligence is an achievement—but something to be
known and understood and which spurs greater subjective and objective
intellectual operations. Insight, then, motivates leaders to journey in the direction
of a yet unknown but possibly very interesting future, one characterized by the
hope of encountering the yet unknown as the power of insight spurs leaders
onward to develop knowledge and understanding. In this way, according to
Lonergan, the data of human experience spur insight in leaders which, in turn,
empowers judgment.
Success in leadership practice, then, would no longer be viewed narrowly as the
imposition of unitary solutions derived from the empirical methods and learned
from textbooks upon those phenomena impeding organizations from achieving
their purposes. Neither would success be viewed simply as a consequence of
the application of common sense. Nor would success in leadership practice be
viewed as a professional endeavor requiring the development of professional
knowledge (Argyris & Schön, 1974). While solutions proposed by science and
learned from textbooks, common sense, and professional knowledge can
contribute to success as a leader, successful practice would be viewed instead
as the consequence of a highly complex intellectual activity, namely, insight, that
enables scholars and leaders alike to inquire in a more holistic way into the
MPA 8002 Organization Theory
-8-
causes of the problems and dilemmas that—left unsolved—will continue to
cause organizational dysfunction.
By inquiring more independently and creatively into the causes not simply of
problematic situations but, more substantively, into the causes of those
dilemmas that threaten to impede organizations from achieving their purposes,
leaders will become more comfortable grappling with the values conflicts at the
heart of the dilemmas. In this way, tomorrow’s leaders will transform their role as
leaders into an ethical practice as they set about solving the “issues” at the root
of the “problems” emerging in their organizations.