Pervasive In Some Organizations / Sectors?
“Learned helplessness” (LH) may be more prevalent in the Social-Profit Sector than we know and it could explain some behaviors which might be counterproductive. What is LH? A situation in “which people or animals feel they are unable to positively influence their surroundings or personal situation.” (John Bradberry) A diet of continual bad news.
The prompting for this reflection was a recent Retreat that my colleagues and I facilitated; it was obvious, the next morning, that the members of this group seemed to feel powerless to alter the status quo.
Learned Helplessness was a discovery that was the result of an accident: in 1967, psychologists Martin Seligman and Steven Maier, detected helpless behavior in dogs who were shocked after hearing a tone. Dogs subjected to the conditioning made no effort to overcome the shocks by moving to the other side of the “shuttle-box.”
According to the researchers, “Due to their previous experience, they [the dogs] had developed a cognitive expectation that nothing they did would prevent or eliminate the shocks.” (Seligman & Maier, 1967).
After some reflection, we began to wonder: is this problem more pervasive than we realize? Since we have detected some elements of “mild paralysis” in some organizations, we thought it — this idea of Learned Helplessness — was worth exploring and…writing about.
A quick warning: LH is not a diagnosis; it’s a tool to better understand behaviors and provide solutions that are respectful of situations that are growing increasingly more complex.
Since many social-profits (SP’s) are now suffering adversities that have little to do with their own actions (few of them, I imagine, shorted AIG’s stock or packaged mortgage-backed securities), is it possible that their people are engaging in a higher level of Learned Helplessness? Possibly, is my answer.
If this is indeed true, it is easy to see why some organizations cling to old models and “turn inward” (See Harwood: “How Programs Crowd Out Community”) as they try to “defend” themselves.
We believe we can change this situation. Risk-taking and courage can replace fear and reluctance if we: 1) develop a new series of conversations, and; 2) encourage a new model of leadership.
This new conversation must come with a few simple ground rules: we’re not here to blame or defend…we’re here to imagine a new way as we see many of our old, hierarchical, “go-it-alone,” win/lose models breaking down.
The model of leadership we need? My preference is on “Servant Leadership.” It puts the constituents first, ahead of self-interest. Sounds easy. It’s not.
What if…we could encourage a dialogue that is deeper, more reflective and begins with probing questions that get at meaning? Questions like:
- what change do I hope I can make?
- how much am I willing to bet on my future?
- what are my rewards for success?
These are questions that deliver personal or “authentic” power. Perhaps, these questions can get tried out in the next Staff, Board meeting?
We can’t predict the future nor can we control it but we can co-create it. As one wise philosopher tells us: “The future ain’t what it used to be.” Yogi Berra (1925– )
