SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.14 número2Los Recursos del Estado como Eje del Desarrollo Municipal en MisionesLa Resilencia de los Empresarios en el Sector Foresto Industrial de la Provincia de Misiones índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Articulo

Indicadores

  • No hay articulos citadosCitado por SciELO

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Bookmark


Visión de futuro

versión impresa ISSN 1668-8708

Vis. futuro vol.14 no.2 Miguel Lanus jul./dic. 2010

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

The Formation of Conscience and Management Groups in Organizations

 

Martins da Cunha Neisa Maria

SIRH - Sociedade Interdisciplinar de Recursos Humanos Ltda.- Av. Epitácio Pessoa, 4376 ap. 401, Lagoa, Río de Janeiro , Brasil.
E-mail: sirh@centroin.com.br

 


ABSTRACT

This paper presents theoretical proposals, as the Theory of Human Relations, especially the Theory of Group Dynamics and the Conscience Formation, which promote understanding and support for the conduct of the leaders in team management, aiming at a route suitable for questions, reflections, enabling new perceptions of self-consciousness, as Hegel says. It is worth highlighting that through these considerations, it becomes possible to conduct more realistic impacts triggered in the organizational culture, as from a better management of interpersonal relationships within teams, these teams have a training goal or not.

KEY WORDS: Hegel; Conscience Awareness; Group Dynamics; Team Management.


 

1-INTRODUCTION

The Administration began to be studied as from the twentieth century, becoming one of the major human activities, making them vital and indispensable. Since then it has gone through radical changes concerning its definition in the modern world and also its role within a medium. Currently, the definition of management can be summarized as the ability to interpret proposals and transform them into actions through planning and organization in order to achieve an outlined objective, I.e., a goal.

Watson (1878-1958) created Behaviorism in the period from 1913 to 1930, which later became known as Classic Behaviorism, generating much controversy. His line clearly against introspection, method up to then preferred by psychologists, despite the criticism already made by William James. Between 1930 and 1940 came the neo-behaviorism with L. Clark Hull, who turned the classic into a more detailed experimental system, based on the theory of behavior adapted by Pavlov. Also, within the neo-behaviorist we find Skinner who was very important in his day for his laboratory experiments.

Watson's method developed for the behavioral analysis of groups used by Kurt Lewin in the so called Social Psychology - Human Relations Theory - and to continue with Organizational Psychology in a broad sense, not yet disregarding small social groups.

Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to seek support in Management Theory, more specifically, the Human Relations Theories dealing with the Management of Teams and their impact on organizational management as a science of experience of consciousness.

I say that it is my personal belief that small groups that come together to achieve a goal will go through a process, a development an observable and predictable way, which can be handled by their managers or leaders in organizations.

It is also a proposal of this paper, to add a philosophical explanation, as a resource to more, or better, a fundamental resource for the manager or leader of a team to understand the self-concept of his participants and improve their planning approach, development and support of their work, with a view to the evolutionary process of the group, of its members and their work, aiming at improving the development and performance of your team.

For this philosophical base, perhaps the most important German philosopher of the XIX century - Hegel - was the chosen one. Meanwhile, let's stop for a while on his work, the question of the formation process of consciousness through his papers: Lessons from Lena, then re-elaborated in the Spirit Phenomenology.

2 - DEVELOPMENT

2.1 - The process of conscience formation according to Hegel

At this stage, I will discuss also the fundamental thesis already developed in Lessons of Lena and re-elaborated in the Spirit Phenomenology where the author postulates his conception of the development process of consciousness.

Using three basic elements, Hegel creates a triple process for the formation of consciousness: 1) moral relations; 2) work; 3) language. The first element, the moral relationships, make explicit the role of the other in the formation of the consciousness of an individual.

He only takes a subject in so far as he is recognized as such by the other, or by other consciousnesses. This recognition is given initially in the family and in social life later. The identity of the subjective individual consciousness depends therefore on that recognition, I. e., the identity of self is possible only through the other's identity, that recognizes me and that in turn depends on me to recognize him. [Marcondes, D. 1998, p. 219](1).

For his part, the work element shows how consciousness is formed also by the mode or the way how man interacts with nature and deems it as an object from which he can extract the means of subsistence, therefore, in Hegel the self is established by reason. Man is both at the same time, consciousness and conscience of himself, he relates himself to things and with others through the mediation of thought. It is therefore by the capacity of reason that man goes out of immediate knowledge and sensible, walking the path up to the concept.

Well, the being is not something given, without more and completely, the empirical understanding of the senses, but what is revealed to the logos, it is the logos, is here a knowledge and, more precisely, the Knowledge of the Absolute, and their categories are not an "a priori" of finite reason, but reveal the knowing subject in the act on which to carry out the knowing, the subject which knows enters the effective reality and hands himself over to the same thing. [Hegel, G. W. F. 1992 p. 40] (2).

The language, the third element comprises the systems of representation, the symbolic relations or processes of symbolization that synthesizes, reveals and reflects our sense experience - what we perceive through the senses - through the work of the symbols produced by ourselves, so, the identity of consciousness and thus identifies objects can not be earlier than the process of knowledge, therefore, the objectivity of the world takes shape in language. However, Hegel is not a philosopher of language and does not privilege give this item to the detriment of the other two - social relationships and relationship with nature - that somehow represent the linguistic representation. I. e., the author considers in this initial text three dimensions in the same plane.

Later, Hegel proposes a universal theory of knowledge which postulates that the phenomenal forms of the subject are at the same time phenomenal forms of the subject presented in the text: The Spirit Phenomenology. I. e., the apprehension of the object occurs simultaneously with the capture of the object by consciousness of the receiver. This experience has a dialectical structure that is characterized by the difference between the being-in-itself (the essence) and the being-for-us (that is, the manifestation of knowledge), and the truth is the awareness between both Therefore every object has both.

Phenomenal knowledge it is the progressive knowledge which the Absolute has in itself. It is part of the essence of the Absolute to manifest itself to consciousness, and is in that what consciousness is in itself. The Absolute is not inaccessible to knowledge, but is the knowledge of itself in the knowledge of consciousness. The author concludes that the whole is what is true; the awareness is not the point of departure or arrival of that process, but the process itself.

In that context - The Phenomenology Spirit - stops the narrative of the formation stages of the consciousness process: the narrative of the stages, of the formation of the consciousness: the sensible conscience, the understanding, consciousness in itself and the unhappy conscience.

The first stage is sensitive awareness that thinks of apprehending the concrete in the sensation. The object can only be apprehended in perception as from the concept, which permits to identify the object of sensible qualities.

Continuing, the second step is the understanding that pretends to reach the essence of the phenomena, the forces system that constitutes its inner force. The supra-sensible world is the realm of the laws that govern the inner forces, therefore, a product of understanding. Hegel says, "By removing the veil that covers reality, trying to penetrate the things, we only find ourselves". [Hegel, G. W. F., 1992, p.178](3).

In the third stage, I pass on to understand my essence as it becomes aware, transforms into conscience in itself, discovering in its own self what it judged outside itself. Discovering that you are a being unlike any other one, you acquire the desire to be yourself, in opposition to the object or what the other is. This is the theme of the otherness (condition of being another), fundamental in explaining the formation process of consciousness, the struggle for recognition of self. The process of interaction with the other leads me to the structure of consciousness in itself.

Hegel postulated as unhappy consciousness the fourth stage where the consciousness is in the fight against nature, one feels lonely, melancholic, because of their detachment from reality, from seen as a distant object from itself, as from a dichotomy between subject and object.

Another key document in Hegelian analysis of the process of formation of conscience is the dialectic of master and slave, an image that Hegel makes of the importance of the relationship with the other in the constitution of identity. The following is its definition:

Through this experience there becomes a pure consciousness-of self and a consciousness that is not purely for himself, but for the other [...] Both moments are essential, therefore, as from the beginning they are unequal and opposite, and still his reflection did not result in the unit, thus the two moments are like two opposing figures of dependent consciousness, to which the essence is life or the being for another. One is the master and the other one the slave. [Hegel, G. W. F., 1992, p.189](4).

Through this metaphor, Hegel attempts to portray the process of establishing the identity of consciousness in its struggle to be recognized by the other, I. e., the other consciousness. Consciousness-of—self is in itself and for itself when and why it is in itself and for another, I. e., it is only as something acknowledged. Thus, the superior depends from what the inferior recognizes him as superior, and viceversa.

In the theme of master and slave, Hegel describes a relationship between two unequal consciences that are treated as subject and object, and not a relationship of mutual recognition. Consciousness will only be capable of universal recognition when acceding to absolute knowledge.

2.2 - The proposal of Group Dynamics Theory over group management

According to Joseph Luft (1970), the Group Dynamics emerged in the 50's in France with fertile applications in various areas, alternating satisfactory conclusions with solutions, though sometimes apparent, doubtful, if we follow the scientific rigor expected in experimental research. Since then, changes are occurring, as pointed out by Luft:

The volume of research and publications has grown tremendously since then, but not even by that the professor found a large quantity of knowledge that will serve him. His situation remains similar to what was then: independent and solitary. [Luft. J 1970, p. 74](5).

The aim of the comments that we do about it, is not to show him how to teach, but preferably to draw one's attention to certain characteristics of their work relating to the phenomena of the group. Insisting on the role of group processes in teaching and learning, the professor can take advantage of a new exam of some fundamental problems one must face daily. [Luft. J 1970, p. 74] (6).

"It's important to remember that Kurt Lewin, in the United States, was the founder of modern Group Dynamics, when developing the Field Theory in contemporary psychology, and was one of the forerunners of these researches on group processes and human relationships, around the 30s". [J. Luft 1970, p. 16](7). However, Lewin died at an early age and it was his colleagues who gave continuity to the studies of that area.

Group Dynamics should be encouraged through an atmosphere of trust, respect and seeking personal growth, covered by a climate in which individuals in the group bid farewell to their titles and social beliefs for a rather informal treatment. Then the coordinator, despite participating in the group as the others, meanwhile, performs other duties and functions, such as creating situations that must be addressed and resolved by the participants during the time of activities.

There are presented, with reference to the field of development of groups, some important topics such as: contents, group process and the phenomena of group dynamics, constants of papers of many authors, most of them researchers in the field of Social Psychology. There are, therefore, various theories on the field mentioned.

In the development of training group one observes the content of conversations, dialogues and discussions. Simultaneously, the processes originating from the behaviors of the reactions of group members should also be clarified and explained. Therefore, the word process here used refers to interpersonal behaviors inherent in the relationships established within the group, which may be verbal or non verbal.

Within the same approach, Lewin conceptualizes distinguishing phenotype and genotype. He postulates the observable behavior as phenotype and the underlying symbolism, or construct, formed as from behaviors such as genotype.

In the process group, after its beginning and subsequent development there comes an atmosphere of permission to ask, contribute, listen and explore the facts and the relationships within the group. They find in themselves a permission to be or to prove themselves through truer behaviors giving expression to their perceptions of intimate forum. Participants initially cautious go to check their impressions with each other regarding how their emotions and behaviors are perceived by others. In a climate free of social intimidation and psychological pressure, they promote a better understanding among themselves through their real limitations and qualities in the relationship with individuals and groups, allowing each participant a greater acceptance of their possibilities and functions in groups.

One places great convictions in the results of the work under the procedures of the Group Dynamics, with a practice looking towards learning of new behaviors. Through reflections originating from the protected experiences, because of the relationships in the group process, where there are going to be discoveries between the relations lived in the group and the individual's relationship with himself and with other groups of his existence.

In fact, Group Dynamics, and its development provides an opportunity for participants to acquire more clarity in relation to themselves, through their behavior with others. As, in the role of participant-observer, being encouraged to experiment with new behaviors and new solutions for their interpersonal relationships, he has just become aware of himself, reaffirming or not his fundamental values which establish their behavior.

2.2 - The group development, its management and Hegel's ideas

We believe that through a protected environment in the training groups in organizations, you can learn to talk to each other about the feelings we have. In addition, participants may move more quickly to a deeper level of awareness and disclosure and reach the feelings that are causing conflict and disagreement intrapersonal or interpersonal and also get a better understanding of himself.

According to my understanding of Hegel, the evolutionary path of consciousness happens as from the perception comes through sensitive consciousness and reaches understanding of what was captured by the sensitivity to reach certainty in itself and then walk towards the Absolute.

What constitutes thought is the immediate, it is what is captured by the perception due to the fact that there are no separate identities, I. e., the fact is linked to the Absolute and the Absolute is transparent in itself.

We understand that for Hegel, the inter-relationship between subject and object modifies consciousness. Therefore, if there is a change in the subject or object, consciousness will receive and there will be a defect in one of the two. The objects will only exist for consciousness to the extent that they appear and are perceived.

To be aware presupposes a being in action, so awareness is the relationship, it is the act, suggests dynamism, change, the being is mutable. The subject takes on all the knowledge about the phenomena, which in fact involves the knowledge about one's self. For Hegel, subjectivity is the other of objectivity, I. e., I am a subject to myself as for the other I am a subject, the other is subject to himself and as for me he is object.

Therefore, in Hegel man is at the same time, both consciousness and conscience in itself, he relates to things and with others through the mediation of thought. It is therefore the capacity of reason that man goes out of immediate and sensible knowledge, walking towads the concept; therefore, the self is constituted by reason.

If our worldview is constitutive of consciousness and determined by the phenomena, we can infer that the relationship between the empirical world with the rational world is the world of phenomena, understanding by phenomena, everything whatever appears to manifest itself or is revealed. The world is phenomenon and the phenomenon is the knowledge we have of it.

Thus we conclude that for Hegel, the process of formation of conscience contemplates the essence of the phenomenon is the phenomenon itself in its manifestation, because for him, the reality is apprehended as it is manifested, there is no substance behind. The essence is simultaneous to existence and Absolute knowledge is to know one's self as consciousness, I. e., to understand oneself as a spiritual reality.

This form of Hegel to present the formation of consciousness through a dynamic structure philosophically supports the behavior of those dynamic conducted drivers in group dynamics and also as therapists in the therapy groups, where one should consider a person and his environment as a standard of interdependent factors and functions in order to understand their behavior.

With this Hegel approach, the higher the self-awareness, the greater the role of the rational in seeking to maximize the fact of being alive, be healthier and experience the joy that comes from the experience of every Being.

3 - CONCLUSION

We conclude that, according to Hegel and his followers, human consciousness transforms itself in the measure of their experiences. This implies to say that the more a collaborator is trained through practical experience with everyday exchanges between colleagues and managers, plus this professional will be able to perform its functions being able to rethink their values and behaviors.

For some scientists, the movement of cultural development is progressive.

Culture and the collective creation of ideas, symbols and values which a society defines for itself what is good and evil, beauty and ugliness, what is just and unjust, true and false, pure and impure, possible and impossible, the inevitable and the casual, the sacred and the profane, space and time. Culture is done because humans are capable of language, work and relationship with time. Culture is manifested as social life, such as creation of works of thought and art, religious and political life. [Chauí, M., 2000 p. 50 and 51] (8).

Bringing towards the focus of the organizations, it is understood that the interpersonal relationship impact on the inter-organizational culture, in moral and ethical positions and consequently the credibility with which both organizations transmit to their internal and external customers.

It should be noted that the manager must perceive and understand that the old stimuli are no longer useful and it is necessary to return to the basics of human behavior, because neither all is summed in respect for the individual or for the group. In turn, they need to understand that its collaborators are unique individuals and need a facilitator of the individual processes of their collaborators and the development process of their team.

Through Hegel's account, it is perceived that awareness can be worked on teams based on the exchange of experiences among colleagues in the feedback and the shared experience, thus producing a collective learning that will promote improvements in the interpersonal relationships and, consequently, result in increasing of the performance of those teams.

Logically, there is no single recipe or magic trick to win or regain the commitment of the collaborator - the best thing that makes sense is to combine a series of knowledge as essential as theoretical proposals which base Hegel's training and awareness and knowledge of the evolutionary process groups theorized by Group Dynamics professionals, such as Lewin, to act consistently and conscientiously within these contexts, always aiming at the development and evolution of their collaborators and their teams.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL QUOTES

(1) MARCONDES, D. (1998). Iniciação à História da Filosofia; dos pré-socráticos e Wittgenstein, Rio de Janeiro, Jorge Zahar Ed., pg 219.

(2) HEGEL, G. W. F. (1992) Fenomenologia do Espírito. Petrópolis: RJ. Vozes, pg. 40.

(3) HEGEL, G. W. F. (1992) Fenomenologia do Espírito. Petrópolis: RJ. Vozes, pg. 178.

(4) HEGEL, G. W. F. (1992) Fenomenologia do Espírito. Petrópolis: RJ. Vozes, pg. 189.

(5) LUFT, J. (1970) Introdução à Dinâmica de Grupos. Lisboa: Moraes Editores, pg. 74.

(6) LUFT, J. (1970) Introdução à Dinâmica de Grupos. Lisboa: Moraes Editores, pg. 74.

(7) LUFT, J. (1970) Introdução à Dinâmica de Grupos. Lisboa: Moraes Editores, pg. 16.

(8) CHAUÍ, M. (2000). Convite à Filosofia, São Paulo: Ed. Ática, pg 50 y 51.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. CHÂTELET, F. (1996). Hegel. Rio de Janeiro, Jorge Zahar.         [ Links ]

2. CHAUI, M. (2000). Convite à Filosofia, São Paulo, Ed. Ática.         [ Links ]

3. GARAUDY, R. (1983). Para conhecer o pensamento de Hegel. Porto Alegre, LPM.         [ Links ]

4. HARTMANN, N. (1976). Hegel, in A filosofia do idealismo alemão. Lisboa, Gulbenkian.         [ Links ]

5. HEGEL, G.W.F. (1992). Fenomenologia do Espírito. Petrópolis-RJ. Vozes.         [ Links ]

6. HEGEL, G.W.F. (1995) Filosofia da história. Brasília, Ed. UnB.         [ Links ]

7. INWOOD, M. (1997). Dicionário Hegel. Rio de Janeiro, Jorge Zahar.         [ Links ]

8. LUFT, J. (1970). Introdução à Dinâmica de Grupos. Lisboa: Moraes Editores.         [ Links ]

9. MARCONDES, D. (1998). Iniciação à história da filosofia; dos pré-socráticos a Wttgenstein. Rio de Janeiro, Jorge Zahar Ed.         [ Links ]

10. MENESES, P. (1992). Para ler a Fenomenologia do espírito. São Paulo, Loyola.         [ Links ]

11. MOSCOVICI, F. (1985) Desenvolvimento Interpessoal. Rio de Janeiro: LTC - Livros Técnicos e Científicos Editora S.A.         [ Links ]

12. RÖD, W. (1984). Os fundamentos da dialética hegeliana, in A filosofia dialética moderna. Brasília, Ed. UnB.         [ Links ]

13. WEBER, T. (1993). Hegel: Estado ,liberdade, política. Petrópolis, Vozes.         [ Links ]