Negotiating caring at the AoM

The annual Academy of Management (AOM) conference in Montreal this year was entitled: ‘Dare to care: passion and compassion at work’. I attended a symposium which had been established to critique the idea that caring would necessarily result in the good, which was implicit in the conference title. The symposium was called ‘the dark side of caring.’

The session proved to be much more popular than the organisers had anticipated, and as people filed in the chairs filled up quickly. New arrivals started bringing additional chairs or began to sit on the floor at the back of the room, which was now quite crowded. Five minutes or so after the session was supposed to have started the chair introduced the seminar and the principal speakers, but said she was also interested in hearing about everyone who had come. She was doing this, she said, in recognition of people’s rich experience and to make the session more democratic.  She invited participants to introduce themselves, which they did sequentially in a clockwise direction. However, new people filing into the room began to disrupt the introductions, and sometimes the turn-taking had to stop and go backwards to accommodate someone who had not been introduced. Sometimes a group of three people would come in at once and would be missed entirely.

Just before the main speakers were invited to begin, someone observed that we ought to make room for people sitting at the back so that they too could be included. One person sitting on the floor said that they could hear quite well and were comfortable; the chair said that she thought we should push on with the seminar. At this point the person who wanted the people at the back included got up and walked out.

Some people who introduced themselves explained why they had come in terms of their current research interests, some of which sounded extremely interesting. Others were just curious. When the two principal speakers took their turns, one told an interesting and personal anecdote about why this was an interesting topic of concern for him, the other speaker simply read for ten minutes from a paper he had prepared .

A discussion began as participants in the seminar began to contend with what had been said. One participant, quoting the psychiatrist RD Laing, announced that the dark side of caring was inevitable since all human beings are essentially incapable of goodness. Another participant announced that he was a professor from a north American business school and had immersed himself in ethics for more than ten years. He had written several books and articles and among his conclusions were that the more hierarchical an organisation was, the less likely it was to be caring. Organisations must be democratic if they are to have a chance of caring for their employees. He had managed to prove this empirically.

The discussion heated up and two or three people began to dominate, sometimes speaking over each other. One or two of us signalled that we wanted to speak by putting up our hands and indicating to the chair. Although at one point she acknowledged me to go next, one of the dominating speakers simply ignored the chair’s direction and butted in. Unable to contain himself about the point being made, the professor responded, also ignoring the chair’s direction. The woman sitting next to me hissed at me: ‘just interrupt!’.

Eventually I did get my turn and this is what I said:

There seemed to me that from my experience of being in this particular seminar there were a number of generalisations that one might make about doing or being good.

Firstly, what we take to be the good is relational, often contested and therefore has to be negotiated, particularly by those with whom we seek a relationship of care. The participant who invited people to be included in the group was denied, both by one of the people he wanted to include and by the chair. It may be that there were other reasons for his leaving, but one reading of why he walked out would be that he felt offended that his definition of the good was not accepted by those to whom he appealed and by the person seen to be in charge.

In the competition and conflict over what we take to be the good there will inevitably be compromise – as a group we were constantly finding ways of going on together, to be heard, to complete the task, to discuss the issues. Sometimes this would mean not caring for some people as we much as we had done for others since some of the people in the room had not had a chance to introduce themselves and say why they were interested to come. It is rarely possible to care universally

Caring and negotiating over how to act for the good provokes strong feelings in people in which their sense of identity can be seriously threatened, and which they will try to sustain in powerful ways (as with the eminent American professor). There is often a tendency to idealise the good, or to suggest transcendental solutions of the perfect good. This is something that the nobel prize-winning economist and philosopher Amartya Sen writes about compellingly in his latest book The Idea of Justice. In his version of justice there is room for both competing and partial definitions of the good.

Compelled to look out for me, my neighbour tried to insist that I interrupt those who were cutting across others – in other words, although we would ideally widen the circle of concern as much as possible, sometimes our immediate compulsion to write a wrong may involve misrecognising, or even harming, others.

I was struck by how most people were completely immersed in the discussion, whether actively or not, and how we were completely caught up in the experience. There was a vibrant struggle for recognition going on in the room which we were negotiating together moment by moment. Despite the contributions from a number of people that the answer had to be X, or turned on an essential factor Y, the discussion moved on through the constant opening up and exploration of different positions, more or less critically and intelligently.

All of the above gives important food for thought for those institutions, like international development NGOs, or state caring agencies, whose mission it is systematically to do good for others. How might the intention of doing good be compromised by too systematic and idealised schemata for doing good since the practice of doing good by each other is a ragged and incomplete affair?

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Negotiating caring at the AoM

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Negotiating caring at the AoM « Reflexivepractice -- Topsy.com

  2. Rob Warwick

    Chris, firstly I really like your narrative, I felt that I was in the room taking part in events. I could even feel my blood boil as people butted in. I’m intrigued about the nature of being “good” or “goodness”. It’s a long time since I read his work, but I think Gallie has something relevant to say about this in an essay titled Essentially Contested Concepts, which I think the term “good” used in this context pretty much hits the mark. I have just dug out my copy of his 1956 paper and was struck by his concluding remarks:

    “Reason, according to so many great philosophical voices, is essentially something which demands and deserves universal assent – the manifestation of whatever makes for unity among men and/or the constant quest for such beliefs as could theoretically be accepted as satisfactory by all men. This account of reason may be adequate so long as our chief concern is with the use or manifestation of reason in science; but it fails completely as a description of those elements of reason that make possible discussions of religious, political and artistic problems. Since the Enlightenment a number of brilliant thinkers seem positively to have exulted in emphasising the irrational elements in our thinking in these fields.”

    From your account Chris, the big “I am …” professor, with his empiric solved and assured answers, speaks to this constant enlightenment voice (philosophical tinnitus if you like) of certainty and the closing down of ongoing negotiation as we all try to sort out what we are all doing together. It seems that the people in the room, as well as me reading the narrative, felt there was something wrong but the voice in articulating this was lacking. Anyway, it would have been good to have been there.

    Reply
  3. Julie

    Hi Chris

    Wonderful to see you at AoM. Was very sorry I had to leave your session early, I had quite a few things I would have liked to say esp. in response to the first panelist (the one who spoke before you). This was mostly related to his critique of management scholars as lacking interest in development, which I don’t think is really justified. In my perspective, emphasizing the significance of development to management issues in general (which I often advocate), would maybe increase the interest in the topic rather than singling it out so emphatically, as the panelist seemed to do. But anyway, we can discuss this another time.

    I can’t quite bring myself to look at my work mail yet (just got home this weekend) and can’t find your email address otherwise hence my use of your blog as mode of communication. That wonderful Auvergne restaurant I mentioned is discussed here
    http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/a200909103.html with a link to his own website at the bottom. I hope you found it yourself, I just completely spaced it (apologies) upon my return to the States, having only narrowly survived a harrowing, lightening infested (and diverted) flight back to MSP!

    Hope you had a great holiday after your return, we did. Look forward to seeing you again soon.

    Best, Julie.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s