June 16-19, 2010 | University of New Mexico, A

5 downloads 76479 Views 36KB Size Report
(Bolman and Deal, 2008; DuBrin, 2009; Pfeffer, 1994). ... organizational power and politics school of thought (e.g., DuBrin, 2009, .... DuBrin, Andrew J. 2009.
OBTC_2010_Proceedings-Page0120

Proposal for the 37th Annual Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference (OBTC) June 16-19, 2010 | University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM Learning and living through the toxicity of harassment in the workplace: A story of fierce and ruthless organizational politics Micheal T. Stratton, Ph.D. University of North Carolina Asheville ABSTRACT This session will highlight the gripping details of a workplace harassment case study. The case will chronicle the actions of the main character, James Micheals, after being harassed by a student on the basis of sexual orientation. Designed to simulate a class discussion, the participants, through a brief case presentation, group discussions and a session-wide debrief, will explore the precipitating factors that led to the ensuing political battles during the incident’s aftermath. The written case and a supplemental teaching note will be provided for participants to use as an assignment and in-class exercise in their own courses. Keywords: case method; teaching note; workplace harassment; organizational politics; power dynamics PLANNING DETAILS Proposed audience: The target audience includes practitioners, administrators, doctoral students, adjunct instructors, and new and seasoned faculty at all institutions regardless of size or type. Though the setting is described in an academic context within this proposal, this is purely to establish common ground with the audience at the conference. Though the nature of the topic is universal, it may bear particular relevance to small/mid-size workplaces. A variety of settings and actors will be provided in the supplemental teaching note as pointers towards potential means of personalization. Maximum number of participants: A small group of 15-20 participants is considered the most apt to permit desired levels of interaction and the opportunity for individual contribution. Splitting into groups can accommodate larger numbers of participants. Type of session: The session will utilize the case method. Employing group- and session-wide debate and discussion, participants will be asked to apply concepts to deconstruct the particular case. They will engage in collaborative reflection in an effort to develop lessons learned and strategies for the story’s protagonist to effectively manage power and contribute to positive change. Discussions of the context that engendered the behavior can be applied depending on time allotted for the activity. Special requirements: A conference room with a roundtable/circular design (as opposed to lecture style) would be ideal. A dry erase board would help facilitate discussion and document participant input. 1

OBTC_2010_Proceedings-Page0121

Length: A high degree of audience engagement is expected (and desired). Therefore, I respectfully request a 90-minute block to provide sufficient time for debate, case analysis, and participant reflection. The session can be adjusted to fit the 60-minute timeframe if needed. Proposal level: This session could be replicated in a classroom setting for both undergraduate and graduate students. Though targeted towards students in organizational behavior and human resource management courses, the material holds relevance to all those intending to operate in a small/midsize organizational setting. As will be discussed in the session, a variety of theories and schools of thought could be used to analyze the case and present strategies for the protagonist. The level at which the material is delivered and taught can be customized to the particular course and academic program. INTRODUCTION “Pain is a fact of organizational life… What turns emotional pain into toxicity, especially in organized settings, is when others respond to that pain in a harmful, rather than healing, way” Peter Frost (2007: 12) Indeed, as the late Peter Frost (2007) so eloquently states, the pain we experience in organizations is ubiquitous. It is often associated with unfortunate consequences when untreated or potentially perpetuated by counterproductive management decisions. This interactive session will explore a case study of a painful instance of workplace harassment and the toxic aftermath of political battles and managerial incompetence. The story is partially based on actual events and describes the experiences of James Micheals, a junior faculty member at a small liberal arts college. A victim of verbal harassment on the basis of sexual orientation by a student, James struggles to find justice and closure. The case navigates his trials and tribulations during the harassment incident, administrative hearings, faculty senate interactions and efforts to hold the administration accountable for procedural injustices and policy-violating decisions. The case ends at a point when James faces a decision to continue the fight or potentially withdraw from the organization. The session participants will have an opportunity to learn about the details of this case through storytelling and will be provided the written version for review during the session and for future use in their classrooms. Once the story has been told, participants will interact in an effort to deconstruct and analyze the case through the lens of organizational power and politics (Bolman and Deal, 2008; DuBrin, 2009; Pfeffer, 1994). Using smaller groups and a broader session discussion, the primary learning objective is to apply specific concepts to understand the underlying political dynamics involved in this case and to develop potential strategies for the protagonist to survive and thrive in this toxic environment. Participants will leave with not only the written case, but also other deliverables in the form of a teaching note. This note will include specific discussion questions for an in-class activity, a written case analysis assignment, and sample essay questions. These pedagogical tools will help expose students to a real and challenging workplace phenomenon.

2

OBTC_2010_Proceedings-Page0122

THEORETICAL GROUNDING This session is based on an original activity employing the case study method. Management and education scholars (e.g., Argyris, 2002; Bailey, 2002; Diamantes & Ovington, 1995; Ellet, 2007; Garvin, 2007) have found cases as useful tools for self-reflection and practical application. The case method allows students to engage in “self-guided learning that employs analysis to help draw conclusions about a situation” (Ellet, 2007: 1). Specific questions will guide both small working groups and full session discussions in an effort to apply concepts from Bolman and Deal’s (2008) Political Frame, supported by other scholars’ contribution to the organizational power and politics school of thought (e.g., DuBrin, 2009, Brower & Abolafia, 1997; Cropanzano & Grandey, 1998; Ferris, Davidson, & Perrewé, 2005; Hill, 1995; Pfeffer, 1994). The topic areas covered include, but will not be limited to:        

Political conflict The dynamic political process Diagnosing power sources Wielding power to influence Functional versus dysfunctional political action Strategies and skills to manage power effectively Political blunders and losing power The effects of politics on emotional pain and healing

Targeted discussion questions for the small working groups include, but will not be limited to:       

What cultural and structural characteristics precipitate the conflict after the harassment incident? Describe and explain examples of vertical, horizontal, and cultural conflict in this case. Who are the power players and what sources do they hold? Are these sources constant or dynamic throughout the case? Is James an astute power player? What skills does he possess or lack? What role does the administrative political players (President, Provost, Dean of Students, and Executive Director of Human Resource Management) have in the perpetuation of the conflict and emotional pain for the victim and his department colleagues? What influence tactics does James employ to effectively acquire support from fellow faculty? How do divergent agendas explain why his support began to erode and divide? Why else did the support diminish?

It is important to note that other concepts from organizational behavior and human resource management are relevant and their applicability will likely emerge from further session discussion and participant reflection on their own experiences in higher education and other organizational settings. For instance, related concepts could include psychological contract violation, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, Affective Events Theory, and communication, among others.

3

OBTC_2010_Proceedings-Page0123

SESSION DESCRIPTION This session will begin with the story of James Micheals. A detailed case will be presented and attendees will be asked to reflect on targeted discussion questions relevant to the political dynamics underscoring this workplace situation. Given the audience makeup, this will create an opportunity for individuals from a variety of backgrounds and experiences to participate in the deconstruction and analysis of this management education case. Participants will then be asked to work in small groups (4-6) to answer targeted questions; after, the session audience will reunite for a broader debrief and discussion. This is meant to simulate a classroom activity where equally smaller groups of students analyze and debate what happened and why. The debrief will include a discussion of relevant theories and concepts from which to possibly analyze and apply to this case. Practical lessons learned for both students and faculty will also be presented. Beyond the case presentation and breakout session with groups, the remaining debrief will be somewhat organic in that the talking points and direction will largely emerge from participant experiences and perspectives. The session time will be divided into four blocks: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction and storytelling (20 minutes) Directed working group discussion (30 minutes) Session-wide analysis and Q/A (20 minutes) Debrief and conclusion (15 minutes) CONNECTEDNESS TO CONFERENCE THEMES

The call for proposals asks that we focus on creating connections. In this interactive session, participants will leave with a continued appreciation for the perceived and real differences that contribute to dynamic organizational politics, including divergent agendas, values, power bases, and resource scarcities. Through open session discussion and debate, they will also be challenged to consider the connection between political defeat and the fuel it can create to spark continued courage to fight another day. However, the painful consequences of loss can also diminish commitment and perpetuate the spread of pain to others. Frost (2007) states that, “when people are hurting… they become disconnected from hope and from a sense of belonging to a supportive community” (19). We could conceivably spread our anger, frustration, and dismay to others for whom we depend in our political relationships. The aforementioned case study is a vehicle for exploring and analyzing these potential connections. In relation to the OBTC roots subtheme, this session will showcase a commitment to developing new ideas for creating a connection between theory and practice. Participants will explore the politics of administrative decision-making through case method and reflection on our own organizational experiences. The case and related teaching note distributed at the session will offer strategies for delivering an in-class discussion, written assignment, and/or exam to benefit the participants’ library of course exercises.

4

OBTC_2010_Proceedings-Page0124

REFERENCES Argyris, C. 2002. Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2): 206-218. Bailey, J. R. 2002. The case of the resurgent case. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2): 194. Bolman, L. & Deal, T. 2008. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (4th edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brower, Ralph S. & Mitchel Y. Abolafia. 1997. Bureaucratic politics: The view from below. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 7(2): 305-332. Cropanzano, R., & Grandey, A. A. 1998. If politics is a game, then what are the rules? Three suggestions for ethical management. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes (pp. 133-152). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Diamantes, T. & Ovington, J. 1995. Storytelling: Using a case method approach in administrator preparation programs. Education. 123(3): 465-469. DuBrin, Andrew J. 2009. Political Behavior in Organizations. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications. Ellet, William. 2007. How to analyze a case. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Ferris, G. R., Davidson, S. L, & Perrewé, P.L. (2005). Political decision-making climates: Theoretical processes and multi-level antecedents. Human Relations, 2: 169-200. Frost, Peter. 2007. Toxic emotions at work and what you can do about them. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Garvin, D. A. 2007. Teaching executives and teaching MBAs: Reflections on the case method. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(3): 364-374. Hill, Linda. 1995. Power dynamics in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1994. Managing With Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge.

5