Within a person-centered approach, (Rogers, 1990) the individual is able to create their understanding of the world, relate to others, and alter self-concepts, and change attitudes and behavior. These personal individual resources, invaluable to the organization, can only be accessed if a positive psychological climate is provided.
Carl Rogers believes that there are three essential climates for growth: (1) genuineness, realness, congruence, (2) acceptance, caring, or prizing, in addition to (3) emphatic understanding.

Shawn M. Nichols

Douglas McGregor (Heil, Bennis & Stephens, 2000) referred to this as the X and Y theory of collaboration. One can think of X represented by workmen’s arms crossed in defiance and representing a lack of action, and Y as in the response, “why not”, a more open-minded and reasonable attitude of cooperation. Mary Parker Follett (2005/1926) illustrated the difference in the X and Y theory by explaining that workmen were more likely to follow leaders integrating orders through a give-and-take and response-and-action dialogue management style. A leader needs to understand that the same individual belongs to many different groups (organizations and systems), which may cause a conflict in the individuals’ actions and stance. This is exacerbated, says McGregor (Heil, Bennis & Stephens, 2000) because the individual has an emotional connection of varying levels and degrees with other individuals in his or her variety of groups.

Shawn M. Nichols

Shawn M. Nichols

Shawn M. Nichols

Individual human aspects include an innate intelligence, the ability of the subject to be immersed in the context, and the desire and commitment for further knowledge.

Groups are a replication of an environment in which The Real Issues are played at, to further a potential sense of confidence or fulfillment. Working groups even limited in their scope, cover many aspects of human relationships with a focus on fulfillment, avoidance of fears, and prior wounding.

Shawn M. Nichols

Industry will always outpace humanity, said Douglas McGregor (Heil, Bennis, & Stephens, 2000). True words in an industrialized age and even more so in a computerized, Internet era. Initial ideas for and assumptions one hundred years ago did not often focus on the individuals’ motivation or their sense of dignity. Workers are a group of people clutching at the last vestiges of humanity in an inhuman world. Business and social spheres that ignore the individual in a particular context create a dehumanizing environment where individuals’ behavior may become erratic or uncertain.

Shawn M. Nichols

Human motivation and public behavior are not synonymous. Individuals’ behavior is a reflection of their biological, cultural, and current contextual environment. Individuals cannot be counted on to perform as expected even when the working environment or lived context is identical. Organizational development and humanistic psychology have learned much from each other from the start of the industrial age.
The Industrial Revolution with the increase of machinery for production, coupled with dehumanization of the individual in a bottom line focused organization, may have helped create the conditions where management and government sought the assistance of psychologists to improve undesirable conditions, employee unhappiness, and unsatisfactory results.

Shawn M. Nichols

Psychologists have a critical role in diagnosing and treating issues after generations of families and communities created suffering and discomfort. Organizational development, or a lack of effective and humanistic systems, in its infancy, informed their work. Psychologists and Organizational Consultants have or are considering improvements in working conditions and progress, or the successful inclusion of fulfilled individuals within successful working groups.

Shawn M. Nichols

Why turn to psychology when we are only looking for successful teamwork and effective professional contributions? Because we are human working within human systems.

Shawn M. Nichols

A leader must acknowledge that members of a group become part of the collective leadership, playing in and out of a leading role as individuals with suggestions, complaints, and directing pivotal change within the group dialogue. This may change the role of the named leader into a follower or participant. Leaders are often determined by their family, financial power or acumen, with attendance at select schools that teach the mechanics of leadership. These people become the stewards of process often at the expense of reflection, intervention and paradigm change. Opposing forces are the individuals affected by the laws and cultural manipulations that become the change agents through and because of their lack of initiation into a proscribed atmosphere of “running the shop”.

Historically, students and initiates are the force for shaking status quo management’s strong beliefs. While there exists an incipient level of arrogance in that student group also, the dialogue is usually well informed and fresh. Their arguments and proposals can force reflection into a management.

It is because of the mutating role of a leader within a process group that one must rethink the traditional positivistic methods of leadership. One must start to think of leadership as an umbrella concept containing elements of any good societal or cultural process and system.

Shawn Nichols, MA, CC
doctoral student

shawnnichols.com