forms of problem solving and effects management … mp 2011.pdfnature, people and living things,...

Running head: FORMS OF PROBLEM SOLVING 1

Forms of Problem Solving and Effects

on Employee Empowerment

______________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Master of Arts in

Management Consulting and Leadership

______________________

Rebecca Surmont

May, 2011

FORMS OF PROBLEM SOLVING i

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT iii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction to Problem 2

Research Question 2

Significance of Study 2

Limitations of Study 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Conflict and Problem Solving 4

Improvisation 6

Study of Emotions and Solution Seeking 9

Role Playing 10

Brainstorming 11

Creativity and Strategic Planning 13

Scenario Planning 16

The Workarts 16

Employee Empowerment and Creative Leadership 21

Employee Engagement 27

Benefits of Feeling Good 28

Traditional Conflict Resolution and Decision Making Approaches 30

Traditional Approaches 30

Solution Types 31

New Models Needed 33

Three Simple Decision Models for Leaders 35

Summary 35

FORMS OF PROBLEM SOLVING ii

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Overview 39

The Strategic Plan 39

Missed Opportunities 41

Assertion around Limitations 42

CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary 44

Conclusion 45

Recommendations 47

TERMS 49

REFERENCES 50

FORMS OF PROBLEM SOLVING iii

ABSTRACT

This study and research examines three sides of an issue to determine what avenues are available

for making critical decisions, both short and long-term. This examines a situation where a leader

and his board vied for control within an organization and the consequential dissipation of that

organization. It reviews methods of creative problem solving and decision making as it pertains to

empowering employees (or boards hired by directors) and traditional and not so traditional ways of

dealing with conflict. Finally, the researcher recommends considerations for leaders of

organizations when they face conflict or have employees who are in conflict.

FORMS OF PROBLEM SOLVING 2

“A mindful system is not a slave to its own hierarchy” (Andrade et al, 2008 p. 33)

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

This study began as an exploration of traditional and creative ways of dealing with conflict

and making decisions in a business setting. Given the creative roots of this researcher, there was a

desire to explore creativity in general and its use for decision making within a business environment

. Having worked in creative environments and then more tightly structured business environments,

it was apparent how many employees were disengaged from the pulse of the more tightly structured

company. This inspired this researcher into reviewing conflict, decision-making and empowerment

as it relates to creativity. Additionally, a project emerged which involved the researcher in assisting

with creating a three year strategic plan with a leader who was engaged in conflict with his board.

How creative problem solving could assist in long-term planning also became part of the research.

The goal of this researcher‟s work is to help leaders and organizations achieve better organizational

results through collaboration and seeing more create ways of viewing decision making.

Research Question

This researcher wanted to know how using more creativity in the workplace would affect

employee empowerment and decision making. This would pertain to decision making on all levels,

resolving conflict and generating better ideas.

Significance of Study

This study was conceived from a special interest of the researcher and an experience. First

was an interest in how creativity and arts can influence organizational behavior, empower

employees, improve leadership and organizational health and aid in resolving conflict and

generating new ideas. The second was the experience of creating a strategic plan with a leader who

was involved in conflict with his board, a conflict which resulted in the dissipation of the entire

organization.


This study is to provide an awareness of methods that leaders can use to 1) view and resolve

conflicts 2 make decisions and 3) employ more creative approaches in order to have better short

term and long term planning for the organization. It also examines opportunities for stronger

engagement that leaders could use to get more from their employees long-term.

Limitations of Study

This research did not work with the leader and board of the aforementioned organization in a

creative manner. This researcher is providing recommendations based on hindsight and more fully

understanding the dynamics at play. There is qualitative evidence that suggests that creativity is

valuable and even necessary in work environments as long as it remains focused on a purpose (and

is not creativity for creativity‟s sake).


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Conflict and Problem Solving

Conflict happens. No matter how much one may try to prevent it or avoid it, it will always

exist. Conflict is a natural part of existence but unfortunately “conflict is frequently viewed as a

problematic condition, one that needs to be reduced, eliminated or overcome” (as cited in Andrade,

Plowman & Duchon, 2008, p. 23) and as a result, people can get really torn up emotionally over

how to deal with it. This common notion about conflict does not frame it as something potentially

useful or even natural but as a “dis-ease” which requires fixing or is to avoided at best. Because

anxiety and emotions accompany conflict and even get confused with the conflict itself, it is too

often viewed as a problem rather than an opportunity. Just as having too much conflict can lock an

organization in a state of homeostasis, prohibiting movement, so can not having any conflict at all.

While equilibrium can provide a sense of comfort in the familiar and predictable, the dynamics of

nature, people and living things, does not lend itself to ongoing equilibrium. Long-lasting

equilibrium inside organizations is an illusion.

Organizations desire to maintain equilibrium more than they desire exploring possibilities

beyond and entering into a conflict zone where stakes feel higher and risk feels greater.

Understanding dynamics of conflict and dealing with it creatively can result in delving deeper into

understanding the underlying values behind conflict and can manifest a potentially better future

state for all involved. Conflict is often viewed as a breakdown in communication (Andrade et al.,

2008) and not as a new point of departure and possibility, so leaders within many organizations try

to “settle” conflicts and use reductionistic decisions for the sake of keeping equilibrium and saving

time. Andrade et al. argue,

“rather than need reduction or elimination, conflict is the fuel that drives system

growth and enables learning and adaptive behaviors, making innovation possible.

Instead of focusing on conflict reduction, managers are advised to encourage


mindfulness, improvisation, and reconfiguration as responses to conflict that enable

learning and effective adaptation” (2008, p. 23).

If we view organizations as complex adaptive systems, then fluxing through states of order

and disorder becomes the phenomenal law and an organization is always somewhere on this

pendulum of order and disorder. Conflict has the potential of splitting ideas, people, concepts,

business units, and teams and can create temporary disequilibrium and movement toward a new

state of order. This process is self-renewing if individuals within that system realize that it is

elemental to a natural system and do not resist and fight their way around it. This researcher would

suggest that not all organizations are ready to make this shift in thinking and that they would prefer

to develop and maintain more traditional means of dealing with conflict in order to resume

“business as usual”. Indeed “The conventional view of conflict as a dysfunction that can be reduced

or eliminated is incompatible with the view of organizations as complex adaptive systems”

(Andrade et al., 2008, p. 30).

If one considers the manner in which people respond to conflict and decision making rather

than how they focus on the conflict itself, it would follow that there would be more opportunity for

learning and developing within an organization as well as shifting focus from the problem at hand

to solution finding. When focusing on problems, one cannot at once, see the solution. In group

situations, people often get locked into either/or, binary thinking as their emotional attachments

increase relative to the situation at hand because their own sense of belonging feels threatened. "It

seems that a great deal of group energy is poured into dealing with (these) opposites but that each

method for 'disposing' of the conflict becomes a stimulus for a new set of group tensions, with sides

often being taken over whether the discord itself should be confronted or ignored" (Smith & Berg,

1997, pp. 9-10). With this in mind, the paradoxical emotional energy surrounding the conflict is

often evident to outsiders such as managers, consultants, or third party helpers, but to participants

themselves are unaware. They become stuck.


Improvisation

“Because complex systems are inherently unpredictable, the ability to improvise is

important” (Andrade et al., 2008, p. 32). What exactly does improvisation have to do with decision

making or resolving conflict? Leaders and employees make decisions every day with all kinds of

known and unknown variables. Some demand short term attention and others, long-term. When

dynamics come into conflict, we enter into the realm of the unknown, of ambiguity, and naturally

have a desire for answers or resolution. Improvisation moves decision-making strategies into the

creative realm where parties collaborate, brainstorm, even engage in artistic projects to create new

shared meaning and possibilities for forward movement. Improvisational interventions can be very

useful in getting people and organizations “unstuck”. It can also become an on-going part of how

these people interrelate in an organization. It is important to recognize that not all businesses will

be ready or willing to participate in such activities and would rather rely on more rational methods

of movement.

Improvisation doesn‟t ignore limitations within the situation or system nor does it imply

there are no rules or strategies. Improvisation provides a road map or a score, much like a musical

score, that can anchor ideas, provide freedom within those boundaries and a safe zone to practice

movement. Improvisation does not suggest a “free for all” because structure is necessary in order to

improvise- whether one is improvising on solutions or ideas. Improvisation does not focus on

“rightness” or “wrongness” but possibilities. It thrives when openness and spontaneity are available.

It is not a lack of decision making as people improvise decisions all the time based on what is

perceived to be the most readily available resources bounded by their own perceived limitations.

Improvising with a larger range of resources entails putting aside a firm hold on existing values and

beliefs and opening up to new metaphors and shared beliefs. It requires pushing boundaries away

from the familiar with a greater sense of latitude around the idea of success. In actuality, knowing

the limitations within which improvisation can occur can actually provide a greater freedom of


exploration. Improvisation is also based on the idea of saying “yes and” rather than “no but”, the

latter which stops exchange and dialogue completely.

As Andrade et al. declare, “Thus, the lesson it seems, is that organizations can create

melodies, such as mission statements, and vocabularies, such as shared values, that invite

improvisation. Organizations can establish a vocabulary that encourages listening, learning, and re-

thinking in the face of ideas that seem at odds with each other (2008, p. 31). They further concur

that organizations cannot learn, grow and innovate in conditions of tranquility, that is, in the

absence of conflict (Andrade et al., 2008). This would suggest that improvisation is a creative

process that comes about as a result of conflict, of energy, that is moving in more than one direction

and is intersecting all the time. Just as there are no hard and fast rules in a dynamic system except

to say that it is dynamic and always changing, a culture that embraces this concept would, according

to these researchers, be a culture that is constantly in a state of improvisation; capable of continually

creating and renewing itself (Andrade et al., 2008). This defines the condition of a healthy and vital

organization.

With this view, other forms of conflict resolution may offer only prescribed remedies, thwart

creativity and potentially kill innovation. If an organization‟s goals are to increase creativity and

innovation, and not all organizations‟ goals are, it would follow that employing improvisational and

creative forms of problem solving, would increase engagement and employee happiness. It is not

always easy letting one‟s guard down in order to resolve a conflict about which one feels strongly.

Dialogue is an art that involves metaphoric persuasion. This is not the primary language of business

nor is it something people exercise on a daily basis. In business environments, dialogue is not

entirely encouraged as managers are hired to make decisions and prescribe remedies for their

subordinates. When in conflict, deciding a clear winner and loser can make an outcome seem very

simple and can allow for an easy way to get to the “other side”. A deeper dialogue and shift in


perspective of participants, which can only come through exploration, imagining and discussion,

however, would be necessary in a creative problem solving environment.

One company in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, teaches improvisation techniques based on

saying, “yes and” as a rule for stimulating greater collaboration and listening skills that affirm rather

than negate the sharing of ideas. It reminds leaders and employees that they serve functionally and

are players in the drama of the work stage and how they show up and play in the scene is equal to

the level of performance success. Improvisation also provides a way to create humor in the

workplace and helps to sharpen wit and remove self-censoring barriers. Further, actual theatrical

improvisation involves identifying status levels, something all organizations understand. Since

status is perceived to equate to power, knowing who is truly in the power seat and when (such as in

a project or task) can be very empowering, identify high value contributors and those who don not

contribute. Status shifts but power structures often shift less. So, status helps to level playing fields

and demonstrates organizational dynamics.

Yankelovich (2000) states, “One should not underestimate how difficult it is to break

ingrained habits of not-listening, to break out of your wall of guarded reserve in order to offer acts

of empathy, or to develop this skill of digging out of your own and other peoples‟ transferences in a

non-judgmental fashion” (2000, p 14). He refers to this defensive nature as “battle gear” (2000) and

suggests that people are used to engaging in this manner and he implies that it does not move people

forward in developing empathy or understanding of one another. It begs the question whether

people in organizations are being led to win over one another, win together and whether winning

involves learning at all. True learning would require a letting down of defenses and reorganization

of information and conclusions. It would require organizational self-referencing; an awareness of

how the organization behaves and moves.

Smith and Berg (1997) state that


"…in groups, the search is for the single point of tension that prompts the

split between individuals or subgroups and the group as a whole. Most

often the split becomes the focus of emotion and activity while the source

of the split, the confusing and self-referential connection between the

opposing forces, remains unexamined, hidden from view by the power of

contradiction to define reality. The paradoxical quest is the search for the

link that one cannot see" (1997, p. 151).

The “quest” in this situation is the search for understanding the “strange attractors”; the issues that

are perceived to be different, even polarizing, but have their roots in similar places and values and

which can unite and create rather than divide and destroy. The latter being the typical attitude

around how conflict is viewed. Too many times emotional tensions ride high but the links to

understanding why are hidden. People get “too close” and cannot see beyond their own positions.

The act of engaging creatively with others to arrive at better options and find solutions to

problems is done in countless ways: improvisation, poetry, role playing, brainstorming, scenario -

planning, and the creation of new stories and metaphors that ground and redefine values and

experiences. More traditional ways of dealing with conflict are popular as well such as mediation,

consensus and negotiation which will be addressed later. These tools are also employed with the

intention of creating better quality results. “When opposing viewpoints are brought together in a

free exchange, the resulting conflict may be resolved by the creation of new solutions which either

reorganizes or incorporates the different viewpoints” says Hoffman, Harburg, & Maier (1962, p.

206).

Study of Emotions and Solution Seeking

This group of researchers studied a conflict between subordinates and their supervisor

regarding a certain work process. The researchers note that the authority figure is likely to dominate

a group in a business environment…his dominance interfering with the free expression of differing


opinions and reducing the possibility of the emergence of creative solutions to problems (Hoffman

et al., 1962, p. 206). In their study, they found that an increased commitment on the subordinates‟

viewpoint incited emotion and conflict and therefore, created a stronger platform for deeper creative

problem solving. This bottom-up emergence of ideas forced their superiors into a position of having

to either quell the subordinates‟ energies and demand compliance or use their ideas and gain

commitment. The researchers concluded that conflict of ideas causes groups to search for

alternatives and thereby to improve the quality of their solutions (Hoffman et al., 1962). In this case

study, the superior ended up working with the subordinates in creating a better solution rather than

telling them what it was going to be.

Role Playing

In this same experiment, they (Hoffman et al., 1962) conducted a role-play wherein

subordinates (Group A) were instructed to strongly uphold their values regarding a particular work

process and to use this energy to create greater conflict with their superiors. In essence, they were

instructed to not back down. The other group, Group B, was instructed to not hold so tightly to their

values when in conflict with the superiors. The result was that greater possibility for creative

outcomes occurred when subordinates in Group A infused the engagement with superiors from a

place of high value and beliefs. This condition set the stage for creative problem solving simply

because it created more conflict and more emotional motivation. In this way, “increasing the

subordinates' commitment so that their point of view could effectively oppose that of the authority

figure may be regarded as a way to introduce conflict” (Hoffman et al., 1962, p. 206) cause

bifurcation, or a splitting off from the current condition and provide the conditions for creative

problem solving. This demonstrates that where there is greater emotional attachment to values,

greater conflict can ensue and that this conflict can be a tool to create positive change. Looking at

this dynamically, sometimes conflict is actually needed in order to change, transform or renew an

organization. Sometimes, however, it can kill it. The result would depend on how it is dealt with


and the quality of ideas that manifest as a byproduct of participation. This idea supports the

organization as a dynamic and changing system where conflict can be utilized in order to move out

of stasis into a more creative state and ultimately to a new form of order.

Brainstorming

One popular means of exploring ideas for problem solving is brainstorming. Many studies

have been done on the efficacy of brainstorming in opening up possibilities for exploration. One

group of researchers, however concluded that group brainstorming did not yield as good of results

as individuals did brainstorming on their own (Nemeth, Personnaz, Personnaz, & Goncal, 2004).

Central to typical brainstorming practices is the rule to not judge ideas as they are put forth but to

see what transpires from group input. One might surmise that in a group, extroverts would likely

take over this activity thus not allowing for everyone to share in equally. Nemeth et al., state “that

given the emphasis on harmony, most researchers have assumed that conflict, especially anything

resembling criticism, reduces group creativity” (2004, p. 366). Harmony in this context would

equate to a state of equilibrium. This is the potentially self-censoring that occurs while waiting for

others to contribute. As we have explored, creativity can create movement toward equilibrium or

disequilibrium. This group of researchers posits that brainstorming in a group is less useful in idea

generation because of the “wait period” that blocks production of ideas when one is waiting for

others in the group. This is what they refer to as “harmony”. They also found that debate actually

brought about more idea generation than simply brainstorming. It is possibly due to the fact that

debate keeps people focused on issues and not on the “personal” (Nemeth et al., 2004). They assert

that brainstorming in a manner in which participants have the opportunity to openly criticize ideas

that are presented provides better opportunities for acknowledging and respecting differences and

elucidating better ideas.

In their experiment, they examined three groups. Group A they gave no instructions to other

than to brainstorm as many ideas as they could. Group B was told the same but was reminded not


to criticize the ideas presented. Group C was instructed to engage in debate and encouraged to

openly criticize ideas while brainstorming was occurring. The results found that the debate method

showed that using criticism did not inhibit idea generation at all but stimulated it more (Nemeth et

al., 2004). These researchers feel with the evidence at hand that more authentic responses are

provided using this method as well as more authentic differences exposed than in trying to find

harmony in typical brainstorming sessions, which minimizes differences (Nemeth et al., 2004). In

this way, all participants are encouraged to share openly and honestly and improvise. A skilled

facilitator creates the environment providing a space of safety while members maintain their

significance through their contributions.

This researcher has used brainstorming without participants providing immediate feedback

or criticism and has found it to be a useful tool in idea generation, inviting everyone in the group to

participate. Critiques are certain to be given in the elimination or distillation process of

brainstormed ideas but in order to generate the most possibilities for idea, a certain amount of

personal restraint can be valuable in order to let others (namely introverts) get involved. Nemeth et

al. might see restraint as a compromise. Not every organizational culture is open to brainstorming,

let alone between subordinates and superiors. Nor are all cultures ready for openly criticizing ideas,

especially those put forth by superiors in vertically striving organizations. What can be concluded

is that brainstorming does engage participants and can be a way to explore new ideas and bypass

immediately recognized differences to find deeper commonalities. In the process of exchanging

ideas when brainstorming or in dialogue, it is important for participants to be active listeners.

Wheeler (1991) notes how important it is for people to express their point of view by using “I”

words (the first person), explore ideas thru brainstorming, evaluate the ideas and choose a plan,

decide on a test period, then evaluate the test period. It is important that participants continue to

speak on their own behalf and take ownership of their ideas. This in itself can be an empowering

exercise.


In the technology field in more recent years, software developers have also looked for ways

to create brainstorming and idea gathering and sorting tools for individuals and organizations. They

have become increasingly popular especially in working with teams in order for members to see

groupings of similar and dissimilar ideas and to generate dialogue and decision-making around

them. These mind-map and brainstorm tools have names like Ideafisher, Mind Map, Thought Path,

ParaMind, and ThoughtOffice and can be found on-line. These products are evidence that

brainstorming continues to be an effective and widely accepted tool for idea generation.

Creativity and Strategic Planning

When faced with making strategic plans which undoubtedly involve multiplicity of ideas,

there are many ways to view decision making options. Cognitive mapping could be a simple way to

get an overview of the current state and desired future state as well as what would need to occur in

order to arrive at the future state. What this map provides is a visual picture of “point A” (current

state) and what steps would be needed in order to get to “point B” (desired future state) and what

obstacles might be in-between. One might think of it as a storyboard. According to Beinhocker and

Kaplan “The annual strategy review frequently amounts to little more than a stage on which

business unit leaders present warmed-over updates…take few risks in broaching new ideas, and

strive above all to avoid embarrassment” (2002, p. 49). They maintain that there is some “mystic

hope that good will come” (2002) as a result. What they are referring to are traditional ways that

strategic planning sessions have been done- rational, top-down, data-driven, and lacking in

imagination and passion and not in full utilization of the inherent talent and opportunities dwelling

deeper in the organization‟s employees.

Strategic plans are often used as a means of measuring efficacy in terms of financial returns.

However, creative tools exist by which to view more than financial data. After all, organizations are

more than data. They are human systems and require more thoughtful approaches than in decades

past. Creativity doesn‟t minimize the importance of an abundant bottom line but rather provides a


means to look at other possibilities which could drive business in new ways; even in ways that those

in non-leadership positions envision. Brews asserts that "managing the creativity implicit in strategy

formation is a completely different discipline from managing operations" (2005). While operations

entails finding efficiency and cost savings initiatives, creative solutions can also be explored in how

to do this. It is important to note that creative engagement is not a one-time only activity. Creativity

does not need to remain solely an intervention when movement is stuck and decisions are hard to

make. It would ideally become an on-going and integrated process of exploration underlying

business culture starting at the top of leadership and empowering the ranks below to think beyond

data and standard practices. This concept puts more feedback loops in organizational decision

making.

Organizations need both strong operations (linear functions) and strategic innovation (non-

linear). While operations exist to minimize risk, innovation requires it. Again, this conflict of

interest need not be considered a negative tension but an energizing one. These two arms do not

need never to hug. Strong operations can provide the means by which a company is able to take

creative risks. Being aligned with the goal or mission however, can bring these two sides together in

more collaborative and synergistic way.

When viewing difficult problems or trying to solve them with “difficult people”, it is easy to

stop forward movement altogether. Again, conflict, because it is created out of energy in more than

one direction, provides a perfect place for friction to transform into quality fiction - a new story that

can transform the current one. This is “reframing”, a way of looking at things with a new lens.

Beinhocker and Kaplan see strategic planning as two-fold; to build prepared minds and to increase

innovativeness of a company‟s strategies (2002). Using creative fiction to imagine possibilities can

provide a backdrop for new stories, new initiatives and even rituals in the workplace. It shifts focus,

reorients and enables people to preparing their minds for thinking further than logical “next steps”.

Beinhocker and Kaplan also encourage working in small groups during strategic planning sessions


to make sure that participants feel at ease. If strategic plans involved more scenario-planning, they

wouldn‟t draw a direct line from A-Z but look more like a tree with various limbs of possible

choices. "If imagination and creativity are the starting points to successful innovation, it does no

harm to consider strategy as creative fiction” (Brews 2005 p. 6).

Briggs and Reining state that:

"Cognitive scientists posit that concepts that are initially activated cause

the activation of other closely related concepts. These then cause the

activation of still other(s) which in turn activate others…When one line

of thinking is exhausted, people cannot readily switch to a new

perhaps more productive, line of thinking...Lacking additional external

stimuli to activate a new part of the knowledge network, people tend

to think 'inside the box'. This condition is called 'cognitive inertia'" (2010,

p. 131- 132).

What this means is that one single idea or word or metaphor, will lead to another and

another until finally, because our logical (left) brain is working so hard, it stops creating more ideas-

or at least- quality ones. At that point one finds oneself in a state of inertia. The external stimuli to

which the researchers refer could be an intervention such as an activity that engages participants

into the creative (right) brain, or gets them out of their thinking and into their experiencing. This

would serve as a rejuvenating opportunity for continued problem solving. This also means that

when one is exhausted, pushing forward may not be the best idea if the goal is quality ideas. Smith

and Berg note that when groups are working together "The group usually must run into its own

resistance to doing the task and make that resistance visible to itself before it is ready to work

constructively on the task that drew the individuals together in the first place"(1997, p. 42). This is

what it means to be self-referencing. What has to happen then is a breakdown in the existing

structure that provides the space for a new one to enter into.


This mental inertia happens all the time when people become saturated with data,

knowledge or ideas and hit a “wall”. One can see this especially on teams and groups working

together. At some point, thinking only gets them so far. Something else is needed in order to break

up the activity because the left brain isn‟t the place where imagination is rooted. It is the logic not

the vision.

Scenario Planning

Shoemaker (1995) writes about “scenario planning” which is much like posing futuristic

fiction such as mentioned above and imaging possibilities from a variety of places. Training oneself

to view multiple possible scenarios increases creative thinking processes and better prepares one for

action and decision making when crucial times arise. It also puts situation before data (Shoemaker,

1995) which can often be difficult to grasp. When looking at scenario planning, there is what one

knows and what one doesn‟t know, so imagining “what ifs” brings greater knowledge to decision

making. He says, "Managers who can expand their imaginations to see a wider range of possible

futures will be much better positioned to take advantage of the unexpected opportunities that will

come along" (1995, p. 25). Montgomery sums it best when he states, “Equally important to the task

(of finding an organizations' purpose in this case) is the right-brain activity in which managers are

almost universally less well schooled. Creativity and insight are key, as is the ability to make

judgments about a host of issues that can't be resolved through analysis alone" (2008, p. 58). One

might argue that imagining future possibilities is a waste of time because visioning is not based in

the reality of now. While that is a logical argument, visioning and creativity is not a logical process

as these processes are located in the right brain, better known as the place of metaphor and emotion.

The Workarts

While all of these approaches serve to remove old barriers, employ new limitations and idea

sharing, they are also all collaborative. All of them involve participants working together and all

create significance for participants by doing so. Using the arts, in general, is also another way to


arrive at new metaphors and organizational fiction because of its non-linearity and symbolic or

impressionistic nature. Artistic exploration creates new learning opportunities and learning can

promote more highly adaptive organizations and happier, more engaged employees.

Using the arts in leadership development, business strategies, mediating conflict and

innovation are not new ideas. They are tools that in many cases are not readily available to the

typical office employee- especially in larger organizations. Sometimes this is known as Artworks,

Business Arts or Workarts. The 'work arts' is a name given to the use of art in the work place that

serves as a medium for furthering understanding and collaboration. Perhaps it is a trend but the use

of improvisation, jazz, dance, theater, song is being used in companies to "defamiliarize" employees

from their habitual ways of working, seeing and experiencing their workplace (Barry & Meiseik,

2010, p. 1505) something later referred to in this paper as “institutional memory”.

In a study in the UK, a consulting firm uses poetry study with leaders in organizations to

explore topics that are relevant to that organization‟s needs. In a case study, the consultants used a

poem about decision-making to see how it could affect the performance of leaders‟ teams. The

consultants began asking a very important question of the leaders: “Are your theories (business

related ones) based on your perceived need to get more emotion and heart into the business world?”

(Buswick, Morgan, Lange, 2005, p. 35). The answer was “Yes”. They noted that "the desire for

pursuing the shortest distance between A and B, another dominant mode in business thinking, won't

get you anywhere at all when you're faced with a poem" (Buswick et al, 2005, p. 35). This kind of

exploration doesn‟t ask “what does this mean” but “how does this relate?” This is the realm of

metaphor and a chance for these leaders to see thinking as more than just arriving at logical

conclusions. This kind of exploration is precategorical and not causal (Buswick et al., 2005) which

means that there is little rational connectivity happening in relating concepts to one another at first

because the left brain has yet to make commentary on the process itself. This is not a process of

looking at how one thing creates another but how relativity is found in dissimilar things.


The writer, David Whyte, has also worked extensively in corporations using poetry as a

means for leaders to reflect upon their organization, invigorate members and re-imagine the modern

workplace as a soul-enriching environment. Modern writer, Daniel Pink, also concludes that “right

brainers will rule the future” (the subtitle of his book, A Whole New Mind) of companies because of

their use of non-linearity and intuitive talents which can unlock hidden gems for companies to use

and thrive upon.

Anslie who uses poetry with psychoanalysis, said “among the things that psychoanalysis and

poetry have in common is the act of transforming by finding a new way of saying things” (1978, p.

26). This is exactly what businesses must do all the time in order to remain competitive, while

harnessing the talents of its employees. Creative problem solving can be like a creation of a new

poem- a new language wherein everyone‟s experiences and ideas are validated and transformed. It

could provide an opportunity for something familiar to arise out of the unexplored and unfamiliar.

Taylor and Larkin write about a study where dance was used to help leaders better

understand space, line, timing, energy, and rhythm (2009). If one learns to view a situation through

an artistic lens, one can embody an experience and not merely “think” about it in logical ways. One

can then thoughtfully make conclusions which were not previously available, bypassing intellectual

understanding and meaning-making. This stands to lend a greater sense of empowerment to the

participant as well because they alone own their experience and outcomes.

This researcher came across yet other interesting experiment mentioned by Barry and

Meiseik (2010) about a company in France that used Legos with managers in order to create a

physical representation of the business and strategic landscape they perceived. One should not

suppose that high powered leaders in Fortune 100 companies would be eager to start playing with

Legos brought out by a consultant. Indeed, a consultant might lose every ounce of credibility in the

first few seconds and never get it back. It takes a certain kind of leader to be open to playfulness


that exploration requires. Whatever creative means is utilized, the final created artifact must

“catalyze novel distinctions or context shifts” (Barry & Meiseik 2010, p. 1520).

Because art rises above definition, unlike business metrics that underlie performance

strategies, work arts can make apparent what language initially cannot- it makes movement

apparent and the inner, subconscious psychological workings of an organization.

“To the most general characteristics of the inner activity, the following

movements must correspond: to striving, advancing movements;

to resistance, retreating movements; to inner progress, a continuation of

movement; to standstill interruption of movement; to feelings of

resistance, inhibition and tensions, those movements will correspond

which are directed against physical resistance and thus arouse increased

pressure sensations” (Adler, 1956, p. 220)

and thereby create a condition, which if acted upon by an outside force, could cause a great release

of built-up energy. Creative activities make the invisible visible and reveal what could not have

been articulated or known beforehand. They raise awareness and possibly even resistance, which

can also be a valuable learning opportunity.

Sometimes it is about looking at problems or challenges through the arts and sometimes it is

about creating an environment that better stimulates employees and re-orients them, such as

hanging paintings on walls or implementing a mural, importing music into the work place,

rearranging the design elements of an office. Some companies, however, do not give much thought

at all to how creativity affects the work environment, productivity, engagement, processes or

interpersonal relations.

Creative problem solving is a way of engagement and does not necessarily mean some

artistic activity is needed or that any intervention is required. It is a dynamic practice. And, when

practiced regularly, provides access to new ranges of possibilities than simply keeping one‟s nose to


the grindstone, accepting routine as the highest standard, using data to determine outcomes or

choosing solutions simply based on hierarchy or status. Being that people and organizations are

always in flux and not static by nature, relying on traditional top-down, vertical organizational and

decision making models may very well be an outdated model since our modern world is changing

so quickly and no single leader could possibly have all the best answers. With four generations

working together, each having certain values that reflect them, engagement, understanding ,

empathy and collaboration is essential for successful organizations. Whether these creative forms

are on-going or act as interventions to catalyze movement, a certain degree of improvisation is

natural and even helpful. Using other methods such as role-playing, brainstorming, even poetry

painting and dance, can lead parties into a problem solving arena that is not only more fun than

traditional ways but enables them to more deeply connect and understand one another, potentially

leading to major shifts in their own worldviews.

These and other methods help to reframe situations. Effective leaders know how to create

new frames and are prepared to succeed or fail in bringing about desired changes. “Consciously or

not, we all read situations to figure out what scene we‟re in and what role we‟ve been assigned so

that we can respond in character. To use a theatrical analogy, it‟s important to ask ourselves

whether the drama is the one we want and to recognize that we have latitude as to which character

to play and how to interpret the script” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 339). When individuals can

identify their role clearly, they have greater sense of control over themselves and therefore, greater

empowerment. The key here is recognition of this control.

All the aforementioned tools for looking at conflict and decision making in order to incite

movement have grounding in the creative brain. This brain does not act alone. Collaborative,

emotional and metaphorical referencing in any artistic engagement, requires the left brain to

reorganize information in a way it can understand since the ideas arrived upon cannot understand

themselves. This is when learning occurs. There are numbers of lenses that can be used which can


be employed but only when the actual resistances and emotional anxieties can be incorporated into

the learning, can the transformational organizational work begin.

Employee Empowerment and Creative Leadership

What exactly does employee empowerment suggest? According to Gupta and Kurian (2006)

“empowerment often refers loosely to processes for giving subordinates (or workers in general)

greater discretion and resources; distributing control in order to better serve both customers and

organization” (Gupta & Kurian, 2006, p. 29). Empowerment is both an internal quality as well as

external opportunity. Managers can at once empower their subordinates and subordinates must also

experience the feelings of empowerment. When both of these are true, employees are more engaged

and willing to participate in decision making on higher and deeper levels to the degree that

managers are willing to provide those opportunities and sometimes much more. "Skillful

followership, then inevitably involves acceptance of some degree of ambiguity and uncertainty"

(and) "The four elements that followers want from leaders are: authenticity; significance;

excitement; and community" (Goffee & Jones, 2006, pp. 24- 26). This sounds much like Alfred

Adler and his emphasis on safety, belonging and significance.

Followers in organizations create leaders as much as leaders create followers but

subordinates are not always part of the decision making that leaders engage in, which can lead to

apathy, mistrust, loss of safety, significance and belonging. In an empowering business culture,

both leaders and followers take part in levels of decision making and idea generation which

contribute to actions that align with the vision and mission. In this culture “whenever possible,

managers and supervisors can empower others through sharing decision-making and responsibility”

(Wilson, 2010, p. 10). "Managers empower people by sharing information, providing structure,

developing a team-based alternative to hierarchy, offering relevant training opportunities and

rewarding them for the risks and initiatives they are expected to take (Gupta & Kurian, 2006, p. 35).


This concept is relatively new in the modern business culture. Given the dominance and

history of authoritarian leadership, Gupta and Kurian (2006) outline a growing trend in employee /

authority relationship that started in the 1970‟s when there was a new focus on “participation”

which involved managers getting employees to participate more in what happens at the office or on

the shop floor. The 1980‟s brought involvement, which Lawler suggests was about asking

employees what they think about things within the organization and gaining some influencing

ability (Lawler, 1988). The 1990‟s and 2000‟s, has brought empowerment. Perhaps these concepts

are different terms for roughly the same ideas but it is clear that involving employees and not just

telling them what to do is very important in motivational and productivity practices.

It is not surprising that these concepts have changed as new generations with different

values join the workforce. It is doubtful that empowerment would have as much meaning to a

Traditionalist (pre-Baby Boomer) than a Millenial (someone born after 1985) for instance. What is

clear is that these generations bring these kinds of values into the workplace, challenge the status

quo and seek to make meaningful changes in how decisions are made and the extent that employees

and not just top leadership get to influence the business.

Gupta and Kurian make the assertion that “empowered persons are balanced, confident,

aware, vital, caring and ready. Those who are empowered are not depressed, confused, aggressive,

divisive, or wishy-washy” (2006, p. 30). If this is an accurate assumption or measurement, then one

might conclude that disempowered people/employees whether they are personally disempowered or

disempowered by their superiors, could have a detrimental effect on the organization as a whole and

make for difficult decision making and productive outcomes. Not all decisions can be made by

lower ranking subordinates and clearly leadership needs to be responsible for the business at the end

of the day, but if employees are empowered internally, they can still feel good about the

work/efforts they do and feel like their voice is being heard. There is an appropriateness a leader

must consider in putting decision-making power into their employees' hands. When supportive


leadership is in place, then employee creativity is higher. When a more authoritarian style is in

place, employee empowerment is less (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). If creativity is active, we can assume

that empowerment is occurring.

Leaders are locked in responsibility for the entire organizations‟ success or failure. Good

leaders require time for considering more than just process and bottom line. Some workaholic

leaders do not give themselves breaks from the daily requirements, which can make them

ineffective and burnt out in the long-run. This is one reason why empowered employees can be

beneficial to leaders who are spread very thin. However, "The generally effective executive often

exhibits what might be called controlled momentary irresponsibility. He recognizes that this attitude

is virtually necessary for the free play of imagination (Levitt, 2002, p. 139). The key word here is

“effective”. This momentary irresponsibility suggests moments of discovery, risk-taking, and non-

linear thought that maintains value and mission driven goals but is perceived as a rupture in

employees‟ expectations of that leader. In order to be effective then, leaders must create breaks

from the daily grind and learn to exercise imagination in order to renew thought processes. It

provides time for the leader to take a mental recess and reformulate directional choices in terms of

the social fabric of the organization relative to the market and other external influences.

Individual psychologist, Alfred Adler said a strong leader must recognize himself as

someone that does not fit a common mold and that he moves with the greater interest of others, in

this case, an organization and the people it serves. The criterion of this sort of leader is great,

according to Adler and s/he must have:

“A strongly developed social interest in the first…An optimistic outlook and

sufficient self- confidence are just as necessary. The leaders must be

endowed with the capacity for quick action; he must not be a dreamer or

an onlooker; he must have an ease in making contact with people; and he

must possess tact so as not to frustrate the assent of others. His


preparation and training must be above the average. He must, in a word,

be a real human being who possesses courage and skills. In him becomes

realized what other men dream about” (Adler, 1956, p. 450).

While this description may seem the recipe for the creation of a legendary reformer or world leader,

it evokes a sense of duty, discipline, training, self-awareness and social engagement that is the

making of an effective leader in any organization.

Since organizations are created to achieve order (Levitt, 2002), without some disorder,

movement would cease. Creative changes create a rift in the “business-as-usual order” of

organizations and therefore, ambiguity. Leaders must be careful regarding which creative changes

are the most purpose-filled when it comes to the overall goals and mission of the organization.

His/her own future depends on it. Whether or not the leader is the creator of a new idea, without

committed implementers and followers, an organization can be at risk. Thus both ideas and those

empowered to carry them out are absolutely necessary; ideas should not be merely egocentric

engagements that have no greater value to the organization.

Bolman and Deal (2008) express the nature of creative leadership best by explaining

contrasting approaches in leadership styles reflected in a model in their book, Reframing

Organizations, Artistry, Choice and Leadership:

One is a rational-technical mind-set emphasizing certainty and control.

The other is an expressive, artistic conception encouraging flexibility,

creativity and interpretation. The first portrays managers as technicians;

the second sees them as artists….Art is not a replacement for engineering

but an enhancement. Artistic leaders and managers help us look beyond

today‟s reality to new forms that release untapped individual energies and

improved collective performance. The leader as artist relied on images a


well as memos, poetry as well as policy, reflection as well as command and

reframing as well as refitting (Bolman & Deal, 2008, pp. 20-21).

Thus, the values of employees are important to consider. “For any form of involvement to

work, most employees have to want to learn, grow, develop, contribute, and take on new

responsibilities”(Lawler, 1988, p. 203). This is the internal empowerment that cannot come from an

outside source. If employees maintain these qualities, they can create an underlying culture within

an organization that is similar in characteristic. What is most important, however, is whether the

leadership embodies these qualities or not.

One would hope that if a leader is in his/her position that he/she is an empowered individual

but this researcher would not assert that this is a given or bet on it as a consistency. Some leaders

are more process driven and do not necessarily concern themselves with empowerment or

engagement ideas – until they experience an unraveling of sorts or a serious conflict that warrants

deeper investigation into the organization. Some are traditional in their approaches to leadership

and ideas around “success”. But, “In the absence of this kind of process (involvement), they

(leaders) run the risk of managing in a way that compromises the potential effectiveness of the

organization according to Lawler (1988, p. 204).

Twyla Tharp, American dancer and pioneer choreographer, interviewed many leaders in

NYC. One of them told her: “It‟s rare to come across something truly original in a corporate

environment. Most, if not all your good ideas, are probably sitting somewhere in your files or are

locked up in the brains of the people who have worked at your company for years” (Tharp, 2006, p.

68). He referred to status quo learning or “institutional memory” which dominates business culture

and is the antithesis to the kind of innovation that comes when collaboration and horizontal

leadership is in place. That is, where leadership is more one of function than status and power. One

of the most important realizations in a work environment regarding creativity is that many do not

know what this means or how to use more of their creative energies in their work environment.


Perhaps the leaders are not very naturally creative and the organization reflects it. Or, quite

possibly, one is afraid of looking silly, being embarrassed, overstepping boundaries or empowering

themselves by bringing ideas to the table. Perhaps that culture doesn‟t support subordinates in

bringing ideas when their superiors do not have them first. Other reasons might be the perception

that a good idea will cost money or others will see it as self-indulgent (Tharp 2006). Creative ideas

can be seen as a distraction from what is really important or what necessitates immediate attention.

Unfortunately, when great change is needed, without creative energies and ideas, businesses may

not have the ability to imagine themselves new opportunities or flex muscles outside of the kind

institutional learning that employees have only known.

Tharp writes about muscle memory of dance. Businesses too have muscle memory and

muscle groups they tend to utilize more than others. Imagine a dancer who has trained for years.

This dancer may retire at an early age but when asked to dance 20 years later, muscle memory and

physical vocabulary is still very accessible. What is the muscular vocabulary of a business? What

are the various muscles in place and to what degree do they contract and extend? How fast can they

move and how quickly do they find resistance? When they bruise, do they heal quickly? This

vocabulary can be measured by the extent to which creative flexing in the “off – season” (a time of

non-peak performance) as much as when market or client demands them with respect to how

leaders and employees engage horizontally; challenge existing limitations and empowering each

other in more collaborative ways and thereby produce results that are aligned with the vision and

serve stakeholders. These questions relate to both operational and innovative processes and

strategies.

Many years ago, a famous performer once told this researcher “know your limitations”. He

referred to clarify around boundaries as well as knowing one‟s strengths and weaknesses. Just as in

improvisation, if one is clear about limitations, one consciously moves in and out of them. In the

theatrical context, the limitations referred in that exchange, took the form of physical constraints,


stage space, actual ability of the performers, and available resources for production. Even with very

little, a performance could be deep and rich but only if the limitations are clear. The same stands

true for organizations. Leaders must make their organization a study every day in terms of

limitations and be aware of how these become the muscle fibers of the organization. This means

having greater knowledge in how to access them under a variety of circumstances. Knowing them

also means one has opportunity to challenge the assumptions of what lay beyond them. It is

important to note that sometimes when an individual or organization feels or looks “stuck” it is

because the mind is stuck or people are not effectively collaborating. A body at rest stays at rest. So,

creating physical movement in and with the body (organization) activates other knowledge centers,

as well as the emotional centers. Simply, more of the brain is at work when the physical body is

active. In a literal sense, any physical movement is also pre-verbal and so, there is no right or

wrong context that can be ascribed to what is created or what is experienced when the physical and

emotional body is engaged. This also shifts thinking into the right brain. Keep in mind that

movement must be purposeful and outcomes aligned with vision in order to be productive.

Movement in itself does mean people will be productive. What organizations want though is

efficiency of movement and therefore, higher productivity, agile muscles as well as ample

resources.

Employee Engagement

“With regard to empowerment, supportive, positive, social relationships are necessary for

well-being…there are data suggesting that well-being leads to good social relationships and does

not merely follow from them”(Diener & Seligman, 2004, p. 1). They further state, “desirable

outcomes, even economic ones, are often caused by well-being rather than the other way around”

(Diener & Seligman, 2004, p. 1). If this is the case, then empowered employees are contributing

more to an organization‟s bottom line and un-empowered ones would contribute less either

consciously or unconsciously. And, "the advantages of the involvement approach are said to


include higher quality products and services, less absenteeism, less turnover, better decision

making, and better problem solving - in short, greater organizational effectiveness” (Lawler, 1988 p.

197).

Gupta and Kurian mention that "people need to release tension. Empowerment should be

also analyzed from this angle…(it) can be used as a tool to get rid of emotional tension” (2006, p.

36) that exists within organizations. This comment infers that people who are not empowered

suffer more from emotional tension than those who experience empowerment at work. If there is

more emotional tension in the workplace, one might conclude that there is a greater propensity for

lower productivity, depression, needless conflict and emotional unrest. Depending on the goal of

the organization, however, empowerment may not be an important issue to leadership or employees

and from a cultural standpoint, it may be an alien concept.

Personal empowerment may run contrary to traditional ways of working and understanding

the hierarchy of function versus role. Despite this idea there “seems to be no question that

employees enjoy the opportunity to participate in problem solving. As a result, they are often more

satisfied with their work situation, are absent less, and are less likely to leave the company”

(Lawler, 1988, p. 198) Furthermore, “Studies reveal that experiencing more positive emotions on

the job is associated with both better performance and higher levels of organizational citizenship”

(Diener & Seligman, 2004, p. 11).

Benefits of Feeling Good

Empowerment, involvement and engagement- all of these have to do with feeling good

about one self. Who doesn‟t like to feel good? With studies showing that people who feel good,

perform better, one needs to ask what else contributes to well being and how can it become a part of

an organization in order to reap the advantages? Harter (2003) defines four things needed to

improve well-being in the workplace: One, a basic need in the workplace begins with clarifying

expectations resources and equipment being provided. Two, employees should feel that they are


contributing to the organization and making deeper connections of their own work toward social

interest. Three would be a sense of belonging. The fourth idea is to create an environment in which

employees have opportunity to talk about their growth and progress. If an organization can provide

for the basic needs to do the job, clear expectations, a sense of belonging and significance with the

safety to dialogue and freedom to collaborate, one might very well have a perfect recipe for an

empowered organization that is highly generative, flexible and adaptive and more profitable.

With greater positive feelings come happier employees. Happier employees are more prone

to solving problems in ways that emphasize positive outcomes over negative. Positive and

empowered people engage with others more than withdrawing would allow and in so doing, may be

more prone to preventing potential conflict than starting it up. If attitudes are positive then

organizations when faced with great change and disorder, would experience less negativity and

resistance around change and find greater ease by which to deal with it. With these behaviors comes

“a bonding of individuals through a sense of caring"(Harter, 2003, p. 219). Call is empathy even.

Involvement, engagement and empowerment; all three concepts are very closely related but

empowerment seems to be the concept that provokes the deepest feeling of well-being while Harter

argues that engagement is linked more to “how people perceive their tangible rewards" (2003, p.

219). Gupta and Kurian however, state that, “empowerment involves allowing workers to actually

make the decisions that affect their work activities” (2006, p. 31) while Lawler (1988) proposes that

involvement is about asking what employees think. Whatever one calls it, a sense of well-being and

productivity is key to creating opportunities for more positive emotions in the workplace and

“positive emotions broaden scope of attentions, cognition, and action and build physical,

intellectual, and social resources … (that is thought to) lead to more enduring thoughts and actions

that then lead to successful business outcomes within organizations" (Harter, 2003, p. 210). Of

course, there are multi-generational differences in what empowerment looks like. We have seen that

idea of having empowerment in the workplace is rather recent in the history of work. That being


said, the idea of infusing positive emotions with work related tasks is also rather new. Ask any

traditionalist or baby boomer.

Traditional Conflict Resolution and Decision Making Approaches

Positive business outcomes rely on employees‟ abilities to manage themselves and deal with

change happening around them and that includes conflict, a natural part of the human dynamic.

People within organizations do not necessarily share the same styles of communicating, world

views or personal values. This can easily lead to interpersonal conflict. Further, lack of resources

and understanding of roles and hierarchy also contribute to conflict (Brett, 1984). “Conflict arises

between two or more parties when they are linked in a power-dependency relationship; that is, each

wants something from the other that is not easily attainable elsewhere” (Brett, 1984, p. 664).

Through this lens of viewing conflict, conflict is reduced to looking at power motivators and the

desire for the parties each to have their own winning outcomes. This is clearly a winner and loser

scenario where someone retains dominance. This is different from the creative collaboration visited

earlier in this review.

Fisher views conflict “as an incompatibility of goals or values between two or more parties

in a relationship, combined with attempts to control each other and antagonistic feelings toward

each other" (2000, p. 1). Protagonist vs. antagonist is a story everyone knows well and can identify

with. This is the “oldest story in the book”. Perhaps people can disagree without feelings

antagonistic. In any case, Pondy asserts in a more traditional way of looking at conflict that, "Most

frequently the study of conflict has been motivated by a desire to resolve it and to minimize its

deleterious effects on the psychological health of organizational participants" (1967, p. 307). While

any intelligent organization would want to minimize a threat to its vitality, we will look at some

types of conflict and ways that traditionally have been used to resolve them and make decisions.

Traditional approaches. Fisher (2000) defines five different levels of conflict:

Interpersonal, role, intergroup, multi -party and international. Most of what organizations deal with


is interpersonal, intergroup as well as role and multi-party when other stakeholders are involved.

Global companies and those dealing across cultures will at some point also encounter conflict

originating from differing cultural values. Traditional ways of handling conflict have been known to

be forms of mediation, bargaining, conceding, threats, and tactics. These approaches do not

necessarily have as the goal a change in attitudes or beliefs or values but rather, they are a way of

reaching a solution often with one party winning the conflict and the other, not. This sounds like

traditional “institutional memory” referred to previously. Brett (1984) suggests that when talking

about power dependency as in between managers and subordinates, bargaining is the way of solving

problems and "although both parties may be satisfied with the results, only in special

situations….will a true integrative solution be forthcoming" (Brett, 1984, p. 668).

Solution types. An integrative solution, which is more akin to collaborative problem

solving, is about understanding the other person‟s values and perspective on the “mutual work on

solving the problem so it‟s a win-win” (Brett, 1984, p. 668). Brett urges that concessions attempt to

reduce the difference between parties who are in conflict (Brett, 1984) with the intention to create

harmony. Where there is a reduction in difference, there is a minimizing of the values that each

party holds. In a concession where bargaining is part of the process, parties must give up something

in order to arrive at a solution. The consequence is that one party could come away with feeling like

they had to give up too much in order to end the conflict and the dynamics and understanding

between parties does not necessarily change for the better. It is unavoidable but also essential that

an organization must determine what is most valuable; a culture of avoidance, concession or one of

engagement. Therefore, “the effect of conflict must be evaluated relative to some set of values"

(Pondy, 1967, p. 307). These values represent specific points of view on both individual and

organizational levels.

Taking points of view and trying to sway someone from theirs is a tactical way of trying to

resolve conflict and make decisions (Brett, 1984). Tactics (including threats) require one party to


give up something by being swayed to the other side in order to reach the goal. This form of

problem solving can become much like a tit-for-tat (Brett, 1984) where each party tries their best to

convince the other to come over to their point of view. With conceding, each party gets to give up

something in order to create a more equal footing in the argument. Brett (1984) also reminds us of

inquisitor ways of bargaining where a third party hears both sides and determines the course of

action from there. This form takes the power of decision making out of the hands of those involved

and into someone else‟s and in fact, disempowers the parties ability to reach solutions together.

This third party could be someone who maintains a strong bias toward one party or issue or whose

values are very different from those parties involved. Each party reports their side of the argument

to a third-party negotiator in this form of problem solving and it is on this platform that our current

judicial system is structured (Brett, 1984). This is also not unlike how many organizations resolve

conflicts where problems are brought before a manager or supervisor and they determine the “best”

outcome.

In a mediation model, once again each party presents their views to a third party and attempt

to bridge gaps and narrow differences. Mediation tends toward narrowing conflict to practical terms

that are manageable but they note that this form is not a way to engage with one another on the level

of individual worldview (Danesh & Danesh, 2004). With that, underlying values and deeper

understanding of one another is not necessarily changed or attained in this form of problem solving.

What is cost of engagement at this level? This researcher would conclude that mediation and

conceding have their root in efficiency because deeper levels of engagement and understanding take

more time but also have deeper and more far-reaching, positive effects. If parties are connected to

one another while in conflict and sharing their perspectives, this provides social value to both sides.

"Institutional mediation, by not promoting this conscious interaction at the level of worldview, can

therefore have the unintended consequence of normalizing particular attitudes toward the meaning


and nature of conflict” (Danesh & Danesh, 2004, p. 2) and thereby, potentially minimize cognitive

ability in solution creation.

New models needed. Moving organizations to a more collaborative and value-based form of

decision making where world views can be examined through collaborative inquiry, Brett refers us

to a study in the 1980‟s the helped to redefine ways of solving conflict. Referring to Fisher and

Ury‟s work, he lists the steps known as “principled bargaining” where there are five issues to take

into account:

1. Focus on the interests and not positions of both parties.

If there is a focus on the interest of the parties and not on what their position is, a deeper

understanding of participants‟ values, motivations and striving can become more apparent as well

any potentially shared values. If focus on position remains priority, it is less likely to create forward

movement because positions are merely anchored platforms but not states of being.

2. Separate the people from the problem.

If participants are able to be separated from the problem, it removes the tendency to equate

the person with the problem. This depersonalization provides an opportunity to respect one another

and stay focused on solutions than petty, personal concerns.

3. Invent options for mutual gain.

Parties have the opportunity to creating collaborative results and ways to achieve

satisfaction with outcomes. Inventing options is a bit like envisioning different scenarios, opening

thoughts to other possibilities. Fisher and Ury‟s research, however demonstrates that people rarely

see a need for inventing new options because they see their own as being the correct one (as cited in

Brett, 1984, p. 673).

4. Invent objective criteria.

This entails creating new benchmarks toward which both parties can move. The criteria becomes

the new platform that both can agree upon. “Once a standard is agreed on, there need be no further


negotiations over the issue because the settlement terms are implicit in the objective standard”

(Brett, 1984, p. 674).

5. Know your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) (as cited in Brett,

1984).

This refers to a negotiator needing to know what other kinds of options are available in the

case where parties still cannot settle. In decision making, people employ their own standards to a

desired outcome. Sometimes, they put their foot down and walk away. Other times, they look for

options such as in shopping for the best value or a “good deal”. Being clear on ones values is

important in negotiation processes and in understanding why those values are important a. If one

knows their “best alternative to a negotiated agreement”, they know what they are willing to accept

as a minimal standard for agreement. They know “what they stand for”.

These approaches provide opportunities for the negotiator to provide solutions if the parties

cannot agree or work together but the goal is to not have the parties have to give up something in

him or herself in the process or take outcomes too personally. This is a more creative approach than

the more traditional ones previously viewed and it moves parties into more of a win/win

opportunity. It also eliminates a sense of competition that underlies conceding, arbitration, third

party authoritarian solutions and potentially mediation as well. Eliminating competition can

provide an opportunity for greater trust and even minimize potential future conflict as well.

Principled bargaining would fall into the integrative approach that is more cooperative, interest-

based, and agreement based (Cross & Rosenthal, 1999).

If traditional conflict did not have as its goal a change in attitude of the parties involved, this

new model does. Cross and Rosenthal (1999) concur that attitude changes do not equate to parties

liking one another but that the desired goal is to help them perceive each other with less suspicion,

greater trust and gain a better understanding of the other's view of the conflict. A win/win effort

focuses on the needs and limitations of both rather than emphasizing strategies designed to conquer


(Fisher, 2000) such as in the antagonist/protagonist dilemma. With this win/win approach, Fisher

continues, "attitudes and behaviors are directed toward an increase of trust and acceptance rather

than an escalation of suspicion and hostility" (2000, p. 5).

When conflict occurs, there is a desire to be right and to be able to predict positive results

and win over the competition, whether it‟s a coworker or a market competitor or customer. While

this is natural, the dominant cultural pattern within business tends to focus on what is right and the

leadership who gets to decide so. Rightness is based often on data and also on knowledge (albeit

limited) of leadership. Rhetoric defines cultures. Rhetoric of “rightness” underlies business culture.

It is this kind of rhetoric Valentine refers to as “metonymy”. Metonymy is the language of rightness

or correctness (2002). Metaphor, on the other hand, provides more freedom of expression, more

openness to how ideas, results, and values can be explored and expressed. In metaphor, we expand;

in metonymy we limit. Solving the problem of binary thinking to him doesn't mean yielding "to

logical solutions or to the accumulation of data, because life is bigger than logic or data" (Steed,

2005, p. 51). After all, in business, leaders are dealing with divergent problems. It would stand then

that relying on logic only would be a detriment to the integrity of the organization.

Three Simple Decision Models for Leaders

Leaders may not always know to what extent they should involve others in the decision

making processes. After all, they are supposed to lead the others. Lunenburg mentions three models

of decision making that can be used on their own whether they incorporate additional creative

means. These three models are a way for a leader to determine how best to go about making crucial

decisions. The criterion for choosing which model is based on: Forces of the leaders, forces of the

decision maker, forces in the situation and long-run goals (Lunenberg, 2010). The Models reviewed

are: Vroom-Yetton-Jago's decision tree, Tannenbaum and Schmidt's shared model and Nash's

synergistic model (2010). What these models demonstrate is that a leader's ability to solve a

problem on their own can be limited and they may have much to gain by employing the collective


knowledge and experiences of others. Leaders need to identify the pressures and constraints of the

situation and long-range or short-range strategies and determine how best to move forward and

how much to involve the group in the matter. These models all provide a means by which a leader

can determine the extent he or she should involve others in decision making. They can also be

useful for parties engaged in conflict over their own decisions.

In the Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision tree as outlined in Lunenburg‟s article (2010, p. 3), the

seven following questions are asked of members in order to determine the best decision-making

model. They are:

1. Is there a quality requirement such that one solution is likely to be more rational than

another?

2. Do you have sufficient information to make a high-quality decision?

3. Is the problem structured?

4. Is acceptance of decision subordinates critical to implementation?

5. Is it reasonable certain that your subordinates would accept the decision if you were to make

it by yourself?

6. Do subordinates share the organizational goals to be obtained in the solving this problem?

7. Is conflict among subordinates likely in the preferred solution?

Given the answers to these critical questions then provides a mapping for how best to make

the decision. “The model represents an important improvement over rational decision-making

theory with implications for shared decision making” (Lunenberg, 2010, p. 4). The Tannenbaum

and Schmidt model also posits a range between “boss-centered leadership and subordinate –

centered leadership” (2010, p. 4). In this model, however, movement goes to a more subordinate-

centered place through careful enrollment, questioning and posing solutions to the members with

the leader making the decisions based on this information and feeding it back to the group. This is

true double-loop feedback and is an opportunity for greater employee empowerment.


Finally, the Synergistic model requires participants including the leader to practice active

listening, responding to ideas, reinforcing ideas and clarifying any that require it. (Lunenberg, 2010,

p. 7). This model is by its nature a shared-decision making model and provides a very simple but

important way of looking at problems and working together. It would be naïve to suggest that

everyone in everyone company should have a chance to be involved in high level decision making.

Decisions are made every day on all kinds of levels within organizations and businesses. Not all

employees have the competency or understanding of the bigger pictures nor should they necessarily.

They should know what the mission of the company is though. Businesses are not democratic

either. They require leadership by those who can direct action in times of crisis and make decisions

that guide and encourage rather than stifle or oppress.

Summary

In the past, the focus within organizations to resolving conflict and making decisions has

been to rely on managers and leaders to help facilitate reaching an ending. Decisions have a sense

of finality about them and so does the word „resolution‟. However, in viewing people and

organizations as dynamic by nature, the idea of an “ending” may seem antithetical to the goals of

creative problem solving which would be to provide a place for a new beginning; one where

decision making is collaborative and value-creating because the solution is a “win-win” and not a

competitive solution or “win-lose”. In collaborative forms of decision making, parties are

creatively engaged and empowered by superiors to share their perceptions and worldviews. They

attempt to understand the other and focus on results that provide benefit to both parties rather than

trying to simply “win” or maintain power over the other. From the research found on empowerment,

one may conclude that in organizations where people engage creatively in decision making and

resolving conflict, they actually empower themselves and become more valuable to the organization

as a whole.


Research shows that the more empowered people become, the more positive their attitudes,

the more productive they are and the less likely they are to engage in negative forms of behavior.

Conflict in itself is not something to be avoided but if used constructively can be a valuable

feedback tool to the organization regarding values, beliefs, processes, policies etc. Conflict exposes

gaps where more creative solutions can be born therefore, squelching creative engagement by

simply trying to end conflict or creating winners and losers, does not necessarily help an

organization learn, grow and thrive. Lastly, empowered employees who are provided opportunities

to engage in decision making feel good about their contributions and thus feel better about how the

organization values them. Research demonstrates that these employees would be less likely to

engage in forms of decision making or conflict resolution that didn‟t provide value on both sides.

Research shows that an increase in collaboration and creative values within organizations and that

conflict can actually fuel these concepts. Also, leaders are more open to embracing creative

activities in order to free up parts of the brain (and organization) in order to view situations and

ideas with new lenses.


CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Overview

In the summer of 2010 this researcher worked with the leader and founder of a non-profit

organization, Correctional Transitional Services Inc. (CTSI) to create a strategic plan with the

intention of presenting it to his board. It was his hope that they would approve it and together, the

organization would find alignment and move forward on the initiatives that a SWOT analysis, a

matrix that explores strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, revealed to be most

imperative. The underlying context of this meeting and desire for a plan was that this leader and his

board had been at odds for quite some time. They were not in agreement on the function of each

others‟ roles, or the vision, mission, direction and goals of the company. The leader and the board

were sparring for control over these areas and action plans. This researcher was hired to work with

the Executive Director on this plan in the heat of the conflict and while they were able to complete a

general outline for a new strategic plan, they did not get the chance to flesh it out fully nor deliver it

to the board because soon after, the board found a loop-hole in the governing by-laws and had the

director removed from the company. In essence, the hiring of this researcher was a strategy as well

as the strategic plan itself. Call this a strategy within a strategy.

The Strategic Plan

The strategic plan, because it was created with the executive in the middle of a conflict, was

intended to be a means by which to create unity with the board. Both the director and the board

were frustrated that an operating budget was already six months overdue. The director intended to

demonstrate to the board that he had a solid plan for the organization both fiscally and visionary and

that he was prepared to move forward.

When a leader, organization or consultant creates something new in an established pattern in

a system, it bifurcates, or splits off from the previous condition or state. This process creates

temporary disorder and simultaneously creates movement toward a new direction. There is often


disorientation in the time it takes to settle into a new change initiative. If done too late or not well, it

can lead to dissipation of the entire preexisting structure. This is unfortunately what happened at

CTSI. Existing structures such as unclear expectations, patterns of conflict and lack of unity were

well established so trying to create a strategic plan was the intervention that was hoped to set a new

course for everyone in order to achieve a healthier future state.

To provide a brief summary for the method used, this researcher utilized an ordinary SWOT

analysis to get an assessment of what the director perceived to be true about the organization, the

external and internal forces working for and against it and its strengths and weaknesses. This

researcher believes in hindsight that the director was deluded in thinking that his position and

authority were simply stronger than his scheming board members‟. Because of his passionate and

high emotional engagement with the mission of the company he had started, he was slow to

relinquish control. He also felt he was the expert on where the company needed to go so he and

board lacked trust in one another. This leader wanted immediate solutions to what he saw was the

most important issue- the board‟s lack of involvement. He fully blamed the board for not having

committed to their roles, mission, and for the lack of an operating budget. It is always the hope of a

consultant that whatever tool is used, it elucidates some new information for the client and their

simple SWOT provided some insight into the state of things and most notably into the leaders‟

recognition that he could not continue to function without a solid team and without giving up some

control to an assistant director. This realization was a big breakthrough.

This researcher and the director had hoped that presenting a cohesive Strategic Plan would

entice board members to enroll in a clear vision and mission of the organization. When the board

suddenly ousted the director, however, it became apparent that enrollment and engagement had

been long lost in this organization and CTSI had been surviving primarily through the director‟s

passion and that of some employees. Apparently the board had a strategy of their own in mind but

lacked the foresight in what they were going to do after their coup. In retrospect, the hiring of this


researcher seems too late because the quality of engagement between the leader and his board had

been long spoiled due to an unwillingness on both parts to overcome conflict in an effective manner

and make decisions around decision-making. Without alignment, this organization was like a river

flowing in two opposing directions, overflowing its banks with no one available to redirect it.

Missed Opportunities

What might have steered the outcome differently would have been an on-going dialogue,

engagement with one another and a creative process, whereby board members and the director

expressed their differences, similarities, roles, and expectations through their own stories and why

they felt compelled to be a part of this organization in the first place. Each may have an opportunity

to offer visual or narrative depictions of how they saw themselves functioning within the framework

of CTSI‟s vision and mission. Of course, collaborative exploration for arriving at a new vision and

mission in the first place would have been necessary and ideally, it would have been done with both

board and leadership participation.

It appeared to this researcher that the previous strategic plan prior to the one being created

was not clear on a number of items. What was clear was the leader was leading from a passionate

heart-felt place and the board leading from logical head-space. The director‟s passion and mission

was not measuring up to the operational understanding and expectations of the board. The parties

were singing two different songs. Without both a head and heart a body cannot survive. The same

goes for an organization. Also working at cross purposes cannot create alignment, at least without

some kind of intervention.

There is a danger in expediency when it comes to decisions making. There are certain

elements of any given situation which one cannot perceive; there is always more to a story and a set

of circumstances. A leader may only see a partial view and be basing decisions on limited

knowledge. Extending the opportunity to others within the organization for perspective could prove

extremely valuable. When time becomes a pressure under which decisions must be made, one tends


toward “fixing the problem” rather than exploring possibilities and many times, exploration is often

seen as taking too much valuable time away from finding solutions. What leaders frequently do not

consider is that quality solutions are more apt to become available through the inclusion of others.

In the case of CTSI, this researcher concludes that both parties made decisions in haste and without

full awareness of potential consequences. Neither party had seemed to explore scenario planning

and thought through what might happen should they not find common ground again. As well, it

seemed that they both wanted similar outcomes but did not know how to support one another

systemically in order to see the manifestation. Exploring ways to deal with the misunderstandings

which were the core of conflict instead of simply fighting over whom was more right than the other,

might have provided a very different result for this organization. Also, employing the input of other

stakeholders within the organization may have shed new perspectives on the situation as well as

contributed to more shared responsibilities and opportunities to delegate to other capable people. At

the time this paper is being written, the organization CTSI (Correctional Transitional Services Inc.)

is no longer in operation.

Assertion around Limitations

While this researcher is not an expert in conflict resolution, she asserts that when emotional

conflict is at a pinnacle, distance from the problem needs to be created in order to view it

objectively and not take it personally. Once this is achieved, parties can return to the creative table,

and find more suitable solutions than they would have otherwise through some of the means already

referred to earlier. In CTSI, if the board and director had been able to personify in some creative

manner, the issues they perceived as preventing the organization from fulfilling its goals,

obligations and mission, they may very well have been able to break through limiting views and

found common ground again. This researcher does not believe CTSI was a “learning organization”,

a place where strategic thinking or collaboration was part of the institutional muscle. Rather, there

was a secret hope that the executive director, if he provided the best “plan”, it would compel the


board to see the “correct” way. Likewise, the board, in believing the director lacked vision and

leadership, hoped that they would replace the director with someone they better understood; who

“spoke their language”.

Alas, while the leader was shifting his focus on visualizing where they could go together, the

board was focused on how the organization was operating on a purely business level. Again, an

organization needs both the head and heart. Because the members could not find the merging, it

perished. Somehow earlier in their conflict, a good “cognitive rupture” could have proven useful.

Clearly, cognitive inertia within both parties was bounded by their own limitations and anger was

left to dominate the communication. At an earlier time, a cognitive rupture could have come in a

variety of forms, including some of which were part of the research in this paper. Sometimes

isolated logic just cannot bridge mutual understanding. That is why creative engagement can be so

transformational. However, for as powerful as new language and metaphor can be, in all situations,

timing of interventions is critical.


CHAPTER IV: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

Research shows that conflict has traditionally been seen as a problem but not typically as an

opportunity for creating change and innovation. More recent trends in viewing organizations as

dynamic in nature have helped in reframing conflict as a natural part of life. That being said,

learning how to navigate conflict and the emotional landscape surrounding it can be quite

challenging and depend on factors such as how much time and resources are available and other

constraints. Traditional ways of handling this energy would involve an authority or third party

playing a direct role in determining the outcome rather than facilitating people or groups to work

toward mutually beneficial ones or ones that may provide better long-term solutions. Many

variables shape how decisions must be made or how leaders think they must be made within their

organization. They have choices as to what extent they wish to engage or empower their employees

and how much latitude they will have in influencing the business climate.

There has been more recent research on the use of creativity in organizations to increase

productivity, employee engagement, innovation, reward and motivate employees. That modern

businesses would contract with consultants who specialize in music, art, poetry, creative writing,

dance etc. demonstrates a value in how these activities shift brain activity, provide avenues for

collaboration and the creation of new lenses and open up to more metaphorical thinking over

logical. They also invite differences, elicit dialogue and because there are no “wrong or right”

answers, leave plenty of room for ambiguity, another natural part of dynamic life in an organization.

There is more writing now than ever before on the use and importance of creativity in the

workplace which is to say that workplaces historically were more transactional spaces, operating

often on organizational values which are separate from personal ones. Growing in market share

makes sense. Dealing with the complexities of post-modern challenges of globalization and values

that define multiple generations in the workplace do not always make sense to leaders although


many leaders get rewarded based on results that provide higher returns on investments. Leaders also

often still seek absolutes and guarantees of success when taking on a new initiative. This delusion

can be costly. There is a risk element avoiding conflict and a risk element if one doesn‟t. If the goal

of business is to avoid risk, then it is likely that business would seek to avoid conflict too. “Playing

it safe” could postpone the pain of dealing with difficult decisions later. This reason alone can be

motivation for leaders to create cultures that empower their employees to be contributors to the

social fabric and mental muscle of the workplace.

It is clear as with CSTI, that conflict can be debilitating but research also shows that conflict

can be just the thing to get people emotionally involved and search for better ways to improve

something within their work environment. Understanding that conflict is a natural phenomenon and

is not something that needs to be feared or avoided at all costs, may lessen the degree of anxiety that

people may feel when faced with it. While some conflict escalate to the point of not being able to

see clearly through them, an outside mediator or other third party might be a viable solution but

research also shows that what is most important is that employees feel good about themselves and

the outcome.

Conclusions

In traditional, vertical, organizations decisions are still predominantly made at the “top”.

What research shows is the trend toward or at least lip-service toward more horizontal organizations

where decision making is shared among a variety of stakeholders. Of course with more people “in

the mix” of decision making, differences of values become more apparent. Strong and effective

leaders strive to create unifying vision toward which all members work for the sake of the

organization. However, because people are different, ways of making decisions, identifying needs,

gaps, opportunities, resources, etc. can become sources for emotional unrest and interpersonal and

intrapersonal conflict. When this occurs, leaders must have the awareness and preparedness of how

best to treat these situations and participants. Time parameters and market demands are pressures


which elicit quicker and more short-term decisions. Building in longer time periods in which to

explore strategies and expect new results could provide great opportunity for innovation. Time costs

money but decisions not fully thought through can be fatal. Because of the pressures for leaders to

create success, various decision making models exist to help them identify conditions and situations

which reveal the degree with which to involve others. Knowing whether the desired solution is a

short-term one or long-term is necessary and will influence decision making processes as well.

The language of business as a place of “rightness” still takes precedence over a place where

metaphor and new language can live, breath and be born. Goal driven language dominates

operational tasks and remains the normal rhetoric throughout business cultures. The conflict

between operational efficiency and the creativity that drives innovation and expansion and better

quality human relationships can be very healthy. However, the manner in which these pieces

operate are very different and require metaphoric comparisons in order to bridge understanding.

While several studies in this review focused on leaders engaging in creative tasks that likely

stretched their comfort zones, they also demonstrated though the very act of doing so that these

more playful approaches proved useful and insightful to their particular issue. A leader must

determine to what extent they are willing to let themselves think, experience, learn and grow from

more of a multi-disciplinary approach that incorporates art processes. There is no cookie-cutter

approach to planning interventions around “stuckness” or cognitive inertia when it comes to leaders

or teams or the organization as a whole. Thinking so would be naïve. It would also be naïve to

believe that high powered, authoritarian leaders or those representing traditionalists and baby

boomers would think artistic engagement or Work Arts is even a viable approach. This may not

resonate at all. It may actually seem childish. Again, there is an optimum time within which an

intervention is likely to have a positive outcome. Waiting too late as in the case of CTSI, can be

detrimental in saving an organization that already faces dissipation.


Using metaphors to stretch thinking is important for organizational health and in seeing

situations and opportunities differently whether in creating strategic planning sessions or dealing

with pressures from stakeholders or conflict with or among stakeholders. Just as physical health is

good for people, organizations need healthy ways of dealing with change and emotions around

conflicting change. Change will happen both inside and outside the organization. The questions

remain when it does, will the business be ready to transform? Will it have the right muscles ready to

react with intelligence and ease and collective energy? Will employees have the ability to change

direction and will leadership be able to guide resistance into alignment?

Employees, especially those in younger generations, want to be in jobs that challenge them

and provide opportunities for learning. They want to feel valued and want their jobs to reflect the

values they hold. If employers in leadership positions do not come to terms with how younger

generations will demand employment terms, they are deluding themselves into believing that old

business and leadership models are just are relevant today as they were several decades ago. They

are not – at least not in the long-term.

Recommendations

Taking the methodology and research review, it seems apparent that leaders within

organizations can benefit greatly from setting clear agreements around how they will deal with

conflict beforehand, that is, at the outset of the new partnership. Having an understanding in the

beginning can greatly help when a crisis occurs. Also, for leaders to dig into the deeper parts of the

organization is wise. Without employees feeling acknowledged or valuable to the business may

make them less productive and apathetic as well as greatly resistant to future change initiatives.

Further, it may lead to the loss of talent where leaders least expected to find it.

This researcher would recommend that companies build teams based on collaboration to

enhance safety, sharing, significance and unity, and to harness talent to keep movement alive. Since

it is often difficult to know which employees embody the “heart” of the organization or the “head”,


it would be wise for leaders to identify them and forge strong union around the two

concepts/parties. Leaders could benefit greatly from letting go of traditional ways of conducting

business and relating to subordinates and indeed, many have. However, many also miss the boat in

knowing how to engage and empower their employees or encourage them to make decisions that

could have positive lasting impact within the organization. Because leaders must be accountable in

ways other employees do not, it is critical they have a deeper level of awareness of how they lead

and under what circumstances they are willing to let others step up and influence direction and

decision making. Some leaders are mission driven and represent the pulse of an organization and

others are driven by ROI and are rigid in processes. There is a place for all kinds but perhaps what

business requires is business “yoga”. Yoga means to “yoke”, or unite. Yoga brings together breath,

control and physical movement within strict limitations that encourage play and exploration and it

requires practice in order to become good at it. Since business environments stress success based on

high levels of competency, technical ability and knowledge and return on investment, perhaps one

thing it‟s missing is the art of practice in the movement zone.

It is up to leaders to be aware of what their organizations are practicing. Since people self-

organize, they may be practicing a different instrument than what leaders think. Therefore, focusing

on alignment, vision and flexibility in thought will at least provide employees (or board members)

with clear direction and latitude to get there.


TERMS

Creativity: collaborative participation in a business setting that implies a certain level of conflict

and exploration around solving it

Conflict: “the fuel that drives systems growth and enables learning and adaptive behaviors,

making innovation possible” (Andrade et al, 2008, p. 23).

Empowerment: “make (someone) stronger and more confidence, especially in controlling their

life and claiming their rights” (OED 2006, p. 570).

Improvisation: “is not breaking with forms and limitations just to be „free‟, but using them as the

very means of transcending ourselves” (Nachmanovitch, 1990, p. 84).

Complex Adaptive Systems: a term which describes the dynamic nature of life and the ability of

living things to self-organize in ways that perpetuate patterns of behavior and that this

behavior is based upon the understanding of the environment and responses to its changes.

WorkArts: a term used to describe the use of Art (ie: painting, dance, music, poetry, theater) as

methods of exploration within a business environment.


References

Adler, A. (1964). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler. New York: Harper and Row.

Ainslie, G. M., & Seiden, H. (1978). Recurrent spontaneous themes in group poetry therapy. Art

Psychotherapy, 5(2), 55-60.

Andrade, L., Plowman, D. A., & Duchon, D. (2008). Getting past conflict resolution: A complexity

view of conflict. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 10 (1), 23-38.

Barry, D. & Meisiek, S. (2010). Seeing more and seeing differently: Sensemaking, mindfulness, and

the workarts. Organization Studies, 31(11), 1504-1530.

Beinhocker, E. &. Kaplan, S. (2002). Tired of strategic planning? The McKinsey Quarterly ,

[Special Edition] 49-57.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brett, J. (1984). Managing organizational conflict. Professional Psychology: Research and

Practice, 15(5), 664-678.

Brews, P. (2005). Great expectations: Strategy as creative fiction. Business Strategy Review,

16(3), 6-10.

Briggs, R. & Reinig, B. (2010). Bounded ideation theory. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 27(1), 123-144.

Bryson, J. M. (1988). A strategic planning process for public and non-profit organizations. Long

Range Planning, 21(1), 73-81.

Buswick, T., Morgan, C., & Lange, K., (2005). Poetry in the boardroom: thinking beyond the facts.

Journal of Business Strategy, 26(1) 24-40.

Cross, S. & Rosenthal, R. (1999). Three models of conflict resolution: Effects on intergroup

expectancies and attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 561-580.

Danesh, H., & Danesh, R., (2004). Conflict-free conflict resolution process and methodology

[Abstract]. Peace and Conflict Studies, 11(2), 55-85.


Diener, E., & Seligman, M. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. American

Psychological Society, 5(1), 1-31.

Deiser, R. (2010). The new word for alignment: Convergence. Chief Learning Officer , (April) 50.

Fisher, R. (2000). Sources of conflict and methods of conflict resolution. International Peace

and Conflict Resolution School of International Service , The American University, 1-6.

Ford, C., Sharfman, M., & Dean, J. W. (2008). Factors associated with creative strategic decisions.

Creative Strategic Decisions, 17(3), 171-185.

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). The art of followership. European Business Forum, 25, 22-26.

Gupta, A. D., & Kurian, S. (2006, Jan-March). Empowerment at work: The dyadic approach.

Vision, 10(1), 29-39.

Harter, J., Schmidt, F., & Keyes, C. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to

business outcomes: A review of the gallup studies. In C. L. M. Keyes, & J. Haidt (Eds.)

Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well lived, (pp. 205-224). Washington, DC.

American Psychological Association.

Hoffman, L. R., Harburg, E., & Maier, N. R. (1962). Differences and disagreement as factors in

creative group problem solving. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64(3),

206-214.

Lawler III, E. (1988). Choosing and involvement strategy. Academy of Management Executive,

2(3), 197-204.

Levitt, T. (2002). Creativity is not enough. The Innovative Enterprise, (August) 137-145. Retrieved

from http://apps.business.ualberta.ca/mlounsbury/techcom/readings/levitt.pdf

Lunenburg, F. (2010). Models of decision making. Focus on Colleges, Universities, and Schools,

4(1), 1-9.

Montgomery, C. A. (2008). Putting leadership back into strategy. Harvard Business Review,

86(1), 54-60.


Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of

conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 34(4), 365-374.

Nachmanovitch, S. (1990). Free play: The power of improvisation in life and the arts. New York:

G. P. Putnam‟s Sons.

Pondy, L. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly ,

12(2), 296-320.

Rahman, N. & DeFeis, G. L. (2009/10). Strategic decision-making: models and methods in the face

of complexity and time pressure. Journal of General Management, 35(2), 43-60.

Rechkenrich, J., Anderson, J., & Markides, C. (2008). The strategy of art. Business Strategy

Review, 19(3), 5-12.

Shoemaker, P. J. (1995). Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management

Review, 36(2), 25-29.

Smith, K. & Berg, D. (1997). Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (Eds.). Oxford English Dictionary. (2006). Oxford University Press,

(2nd

ed., revised). 570.

Steed, R. (2005). The play's the thing: Using interactive drama in leadership development.

Journal of Business Strategy, 26(5), 48-52.

Taylor, S. A. & Ladkin, D., (2009). Understanding arts-based methods in managerial development.

Academy of management Learning and Education, 8(1), 55-69.

Tharp, T. (2003). The Creative Habit. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Wheeler, M. S. (1991, Fall). Six steps to successful conflict management. Family Psychologist,

7(4), 23-24.

Valentine, V. (2002). Repositioning research: A new mr language model. The Market Research

Group, 44(2), 163-192.


Wilson, J. (Dec2009/Jan2010). The art of delegation and empowering pthers. PT in Motion, 1(3),

10.

Yankelovich, D. (2000). Conflict management: The magic of dialogue. Head Start Bulletin, 68, 13-

14.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K., (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The

influence of psychological empowerment, instrinsic motivation, and creative process

engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.

forms of problem solving and effects management … mp 2011.pdfnature, people and living things,...

Documents