Post No. 907 - reprint from PGB, and "Group Conscience"

This a comment I posted on my PGB Teams, Technical and Writing site:

Any good thing can be twisted or misused. In the context of this blog, examples I wish to consider are:

(a) (mis)use of group bonding, and
(b) incorrect views around emotional intelligence.

This is based on some recent reading, but I have decided to NOT post the original links as I want to consider these issues free of the hoopla which has developed around them.
Now, on group bonding, there is a reasonable case to be made that having a sense of belonging or connection can increase people’s contribution to a group. However, that has been taken to a contradictory and destructive extreme by some companies who shut people out for not dressing in a similar fashion to everyone else there – which was part of two articles I read recently on line. In the case I am considering here, this misuse of group bonding effectively constituted discrimination against women and minorities – which is something that can be explained by the good people at the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, if you wish to know more. (I acknowledge that asking that question is limited by my not having provided the links, but you can at least get some information and start thinking.)

What I am particularly concerned about there is, in addition to the discrimination and loss of access to resources, the high potential for such actions to be locking in “group think”. This is particularly so if the group has a history of, perhaps, being founded by a group of friends, or recruiting from a limited social class/ethnicity/religion (as an example of that, consider that here in Australia, there was massive prejudice against Irish Catholics on the part of the British soldiers and aristocracy in the late 1700s and early 1800s), which may lead to self reinforcing behaviour, leading eventually to a loss of relevance. On the other hand, if a group truly has flexibility and freedom to think creatively and thoroughly and clearly, such misuses of good ideas would possibly be raised and challenged.

There are a number of fairly obvious (or, at least, reasonably well known) measures to take to address the problem of group think (increasing diversity, for instance, at all levels of a group, up to and including leadership); another idea I have worked on (for a non-engineering group, and to the extent of creating a Position Description) is having someone be (with that person’s prior acceptance of an informed invitation) the group’s “conscience”. Now, most people tend to automatically feel guilty when they hear the word conscience, which does tend to put the Group Conscience in a difficult situation, but that also means the Group Conscience is not going to be expected to conform and go along with proposals automatically – they’re far more likely to challenge group think because they have no stake in belonging.

That, of course, makes delegating an employee or member to be the Group Conscience difficult, so perhaps this needs to be someone who is not an employee or member. In fact, we already have quite a few such people in fields such as finance and QAQC: we call them auditors. What I am proposing, however, goes further than that: someone taking part in the workplace culture and decision making on a daily basis – which suggests the person needs to be an employee or member. If so, they will need to be a remarkable person to manage their situation – which involves, when all is said and done, enormous potential to “do good”.

Another situation which verges on this is a recent situation, described on-line, where a group of young interns were apparently sacked for creating a petition for a relaxation of dress standards. One of the articles I read about this argued that the interns were there to learn, but:

(a) there was an exception being made and not being explained (there were privacy constraints on how much should be said about that exception, but there was no constraint on saying “there are reasons for that exception which are subject to privacy constraints”), which is poor communication and poor emotional intelligence on the part of the employer;

(b) petitions are normal behaviour amongst some people,

(c) the young interns are representative of the future clientele of that organisation, and

(d) by any objective measure, there were legitimate reasons for asking questions about a potential workplace grievance.

Now, on that last point, there may well be reasons relating to client expectations for the dress code, as was generally suggested in the articles I read and the comments / responses, but it needs to be kept in mind that circumstances and fashions change with time – for instance, men mostly do not wear Elizabethan ruffles now, it is acceptable in all good workplaces for women to wear slacks, corsets are not in widespread use (which has health benefits), the health benefits of flat (“sensible”) shoes for women in some professions (e.g., nursing) is accepted enough for high heels to have gone to the same place as the abhorrent practice of foot binding, triple breasted suits including the placement of cod pieces around the neck (i.e. ties) is being questioned by many and, in most situations, the triple-breasted suit has (and this also has health benefits in warmer climates) gone the way of the dodo – which I suspect may also be the case for the company that sacked its interns when its future clients are from that age group.

What was particularly concerning for me was the way one of the articles portrayed the young people concerned as lacking in emotional intelligence – which brings us to the second point I wish to cover.

Now, emotional intelligence is MORE than just being able to identify emotions, but identification of emotions is a good first step. Unfortunately, the article concerned did not discuss emotions at all, only behaviours, and in a way which suggested the author was hierarchical and possibly discriminatory (towards young people) in their thinking. Yes, some young people can be aggravating and self entitled (I’ve told some off in the workplace for such behaviour) – but so can people of all ages (I’ve had to threaten some older people with legal action, for instance, over discrimination and ethical concerns), and young people can also be talented, and are our future (and I am very pleased to have known and contributed to the development of some such young people – in fact, I will be looking at a verification of experience for one such engineer next). There clearly was a need for the young people to learn why the rules were there, but, in terms of emotional intelligence, why had management not foreseen that this exception could lead to resentment? Did they lack an understanding of how people from outside their group would react?

In fact, in terms of emotional intelligence, the situation shows flawed communication in the harsh response - why was there no immediate response on the part of management that this was a misunderstanding, based on identification of an unexplained exception to a stringently enforced and actively advertised policy? Was it based on a belief that young people should be seen and not heard?

Obviously the emotional needs of the person who had the exception are important (as I said, there was a valid reason for the exception – and the young people may have struggled with the fact that they couldn’t know the details, but so would many people I know in other age groups), but the response and the articles show NO awareness of the valid needs of those younger people – and, based on my life experience, I suspect the management group may well be likely to be discriminatory in other areas as well.

Finally, I want to emphasise that both articles fail, in my opinion, to note that there were legitimate workplace grievances – beginning with the existence of unpaid internships, and also low wages making survival a major challenge. I’m glad that we don’t have internships here.

Both of these situations might also have been helped had there been a Group Conscience …

PS - the Group Conscience was part of the Grove of Gyhldeptis, with a similar role for the Rangers. The sort of operating context I had in mind was:

(The diagram needs an arrow back from the Grove Ombudsperson.)

I hadn't got as far as writing a Position Description for the Group Conscience (when I wrote the above extract from the PGB I thought I had, but that was actually for the Rangers), but the references to Group Conscience in the following position description for the Grove Guide give a bit of an idea (it's detailed because I have a lot of experience of disagreements and other situations where that dtail would have been necessary from other groups):

Position Descriptions

Grove Guide

General

The following applies to the position of Grove Guide from the Constitution:

The Grove Guide is responsible for ensuring that the Grove functions effectively and in accordance with this Constitution.

The Grove Guide has the authority to:

·         accept or reject prospective members

·         examine the relevant activity of or remove current members

·         initiate or accept or reject proposed alterations to the Grove Constitution, By Laws, Operating Procedures and other documentation

·         create or dissolve subsidiary positions within the Grove, and appoint or remove members to such positions

·         issue instructions or undertake other actions, subject to the accountabilities outlined in Section 4, as may be deemed necessary from time to time to ensure proper functioning of the Grove.

The following applies to the position of Grove Guide from the By-Laws:

The Grove Guide shall ensure current copies of Grove documents, including Constitution, By Laws, Operating Procedures, Code of Behaviour and Position Descriptions are accessible via the on line site(s) of the Grove.

The Grove Guide shall ensure position descriptions are created and maintained for all offices within the Grove of Gyhldeptis, including Grove Guide.

Should no such activity have been observed for a twelve month period, the Grove Guide may seek to verify whether or not the member still wishes to be a member of the Grove of Gyhldeptis. Should no response be received from the member to three attempted communications over a three month period, the Grove Guide may end the respective membership.

Members shall indicate their wish to be active or inactive upon application, by the means determined by the Grove Guide. Acceptance of applications for inactive membership shall be at the discretion of the Grove Guide, who may take such advice as she deems fit or appropriate. Inactive members may change their status to active by activity combined with a request. Acceptance of such change of status may be conditional upon undergoing a period of probationary membership.

At the end of the nine month Probationary Membership period, the Grove Guide shall review the probationary membership with respect to such factors as activity, conduct and ability of probationary member to “fit” the Grove’s group and social dynamics, and then may:

·         accept the member into active membership of the Grove

·         end the membership

·         extend the membership for such period as considered appropriate

·         other action as deemed appropriate.

The Grove Guide shall create, maintain and modify as deemed necessary by either the Grove Guide, the Grove Conscience, the Spiritual Advisor or the Grove Guardian, a Code of Behaviour for Members of the Grove of Gyhldeptis.

Undertake appropriate role(s) in management of disputes.

Duties

The Grove Guide’s duties include the following:

Duties	Methods/comments/references
	·
Creation of Subsidiary Positions	·              ·            ensure that the Spiritual Advisor, Grove Conscience and Grove Guardian have sufficient access to the Grove to be capable of performing their job ·            ensure the Historian and Record Keeper, if appointed, has adequate support and resources to create a Privacy Policy, and that the Privacy Policy is adopted and managed as an Operating Procedure

Authority

The Grove Guide has Authority to do the following:

·         appoint or, subject to the provisions of Section 4  Responsibility, Accountability and Dispute Management of the Constitution of the Grove of Gyhldeptis, dismiss persons to the positions of Spiritual Advisor, Grove Conscience and Grove Guardian

·         accept or reject prospective members

·         examine the relevant activity of or remove current members

·         initiate, accept, amend or reject proposed alterations to the Grove Constitution, By Laws, Operating Procedures and other documentation

·         create or dissolve subsidiary positions within the Grove, and appoint or remove members to such positions

·         issue instructions or undertake other actions, subject to the accountabilities outlined in Section 4 Responsibility, Accountability and Dispute Management of the Constitution of the Grove of Gyhldeptis, as may be deemed necessary from time to time to ensure proper functioning of the Grove

·         accept, reject or alter proposals for rituals, projects or other activities for the Grove of Gyhldeptis

·         start, alter or stop rituals, projects or other activities for the Grove of Gyhldeptis

·         alter membership status or rights of Members and exercise all the powers of Group Owner on the Grove’s YahooGroups website

·         manage or direct dispute resolution procedures

Accountability

The Grove Guide has the following accountabilities:

To	For
Spiritual Advisor	·            ensuring the Spiritual Advisor is fully aware of the Grove Guide’s - and the Grove’s - activities and is able to fulfil his/her/hir position efficiently and effectively ·            maintaining own spiritual development
Grove Conscience	·            ensuring the Grove Conscience is fully aware of the Grove Guide’s - and the Grove’s - activities and is able to fulfil his/her/hir position efficiently and effectively ·            ensuring the Grove operates in a spiritual manner
Grove Guardian	·            ensuring the Grove Guardian is fully aware of the Grove Guide’s-  and the Grove’s - activities and is able to fulfil his/her/hir position efficiently and effectively ·            ensuring the Grove is adequately protected
Grove Ombudsperson	·            Ensuring the Grove Ombudsperson is able to fulfil his/her/hir position efficiently and effectively
Self	·            executing the duties of this office in a manner which will incur only positive karmic returns ·            identifying and taking opportunities for personal and spiritual growth which occur through having this office ·
Members of the Temple	·            the proper and effective functioning of the Grove ·            the appointment and oversight and, if necessary, removal of persons to positions within the Grove ·            ensuring the Grove’s members are adequately informed as to the Grove’s activities ·            ensuring the dispute resolution provisions are properly implemented, and that members are all aware of such provisions including contact details of Grove officials ·            administration of Grove’s online websites and/or groups

Resources

The experience, skills, qualifications, knowledge and training of the Grove Guide are a resource, to be managed as any other resource.

The experience, skills, qualifications, knowledge and training of other members of the Grove are also available for use by the Grove Guide.

From time to time, and subject to authorisation of the Grove Guide (subject to review by the Spiritual Advisor or Grove Conscience if requested), the experience, skills, qualifications, knowledge and training of people outside the Grove may be accessed.