In this week's readings, Bolman and Deal (2013) discussed the souls of organizations. They described the souls as being the bedrock of organizations' identities and values, and as being closely intertwined with the organizations' ethics. While reading this, I immediately began thinking of the souls of the various groups I've been a part of, whether they were work offices, student organizations, professional societies, or even just group project teams. Each one seems to have its own souls, but I came to realize I have a loosely-defined soul I prefer an organization to have. This was shown by how similar the souls among organizations I've led are, both because of how they were already established and because of how I crafted the soul while in the leadership role. I prefer organizations that value family-like structures and maintain strong ethics of inclusion and empowerment (or authorship).
Perhaps the strongest example of my preferred organizational soul is that of the student newspaper where I was the Managing Editor. Everyone operated as a family with genuine care and concern for each other paired with strong loyalty. We sought to make everyone feel welcome and included, which was done pretty naturally especially considering just how vastly different each person was. Finally, we played to each others' strengths and provided enough autonomy for each person to take ownership of their role. Such an organizational soul also reflects the Feminist perspective of organizations as described in Manning (2013). On the other hand, I have worked in organizations and offices where I find myself at odds with the soul. I typically struggle with souls born out of the political framework, where power is strongly valued. In one student affairs office where I have worked, the student volunteers in one organization were valued much more highly than student staff members and other constituencies. This embodied favoritism, fueled senses of entitlement, and created poorly-founded perceptions of power and authority of one group of students over another. I struggled with this office's soul, as it was so conflicting with my own values, ethics, and identity. Once I began reading the chapters from Schloss and Cragg (2013) for this week, I realized how applicable organization souls are to crises and laws. What an organization values, the ethics they maintain, and their sense of identity will guide how they respond to emergencies and the ways in which they will interact with various policies. Will they be equipped to handle crises, or will a single emergency be their end? Will they strive to uphold policies, or will they seek to understand laws just to know how to sidestep them? In the examples I described above, I can see how the newspaper's soul and the campus office's soul would influence their interactions with crises and policies. The newspaper would be ready for a campus protest against an editorial it wrote because every staff member would have each others' backs and they would have carefully written the editorial in accordance with its values of right and wrong. On the other hand, however, I could see the campus office failing to respond to dissatisfaction and criticism by external groups; those students who were undervalued and not included in the "favorite" group would likely turn against the office and fuel the fire. In regard to policies, the newspaper staff was well-versed in them and knew how to reinforce them through their work. With the campus office, however, I would see shady things happening to try and get around policies with facilities, marketing on campus, etc. In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading about various souls of organizations. As I continue my job search, I will do my best to identify the souls of colleges and campus offices to help me find my best fit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kristin KreherMy happiness comes from meaningful interactions, the outdoors, thrift shops, and saying "thank you." Archives
April 2018
Categories
All
|