Sunday, June 09, 2013

Sensemaking and Folksongs

Coming across the term "sensemaking" in my Organizational Communication textbook, I cynically wondered why academics continually make up words to fit some sort of ideology. It seemed to me that "sensemaking" is the normal thing we do everyday in all situations and should not require some sort of term to describe normal events. Yet as I kept my sarcasm going in my head, I also decided to examine the usage more carefully. In all honesty, I was completely wrong in my suspicion, and my cynicism was totally without merit. Sensemaking is alive and well and is a worthy practice for all organizations and leaders.

The author of the textbook referenced a man named Karl Weick which then led me to read more about sensemaking. In its base form, sensemaking is the process of  individuals in an organization incorporating all  information about situations, events, emotions, or people and communicating that information in an open environment. It is also about avoiding assumptions, about team building, and about looking beyond the obvious, applying depth and meaning through organizational behavior. Sensemaking combines knowledge and information with human interaction and awareness of human needs, applying comprehensive meaning to the experience.

As I learned more about sensemaking, I realized the inherent value of the process and have decided to practice the theory at every opportunity. Reflecting on how to invoke sensemaking as a part of my leadership world, I began to read about examples of how using sensemaking can make a difference in organizations. Studying these situations brought me to the tragedy of the fire of 1949 at Mann Gulch Montana. Without going into detail, 13 brave firefighters lost their lives due to assumptions, poor information, poor organizational leadership, a lack of team building, and a lack of knowledge of science. Their decisions were based on intuition and self motivation rather than capturing all the information needed to survive. It is not insignificant that of the three people who survived, one used his knowledge of fires to make it work to his advantage, and the other two bonded together and used collective decision making to find a way out. While tragedy may have occurred in spite of utilizing sensemaking, it is likely more would have survived had they fully understood all the factors at play in the experience. Sadly, the event points to the need for organizations, leaders, and everyone to practice a high level of sensemaking in not only the dramatic events of our lives but also the day to day activities.

For anyone seeking to know more about sensemaking, there are several excellent articles on the subject that identify seven properties of sensemaking to apply in situations related to organizations or in leadership. But what does any of this have to do with folksongs? Learning more about the Mann Gulch tragedy and feeling engulfed in the powerful emotion of lives lost, I discovered a folk song about the event. Called the Mann Gulch Tribute, the song tells the story of the events of the fire and the people who fought bravely but lost to the power of nature (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWLSbWhwTE0). It is sung with a folk type of accompaniment of guitar arpeggiated with varied and judicious uses of simple chords and appropriate harmony. The charm of the song is its simplicity that allows the story to come through in a balance of emotion and objective presentation.

Folk songs are cathartic expressions of honesty, allowing listeners to understand the pain without excessive sentimentality or unbridled musical anguish. Folk songs can be joyous, sad, bitter, satisfying, or simply narrative in presentation. They may or may not make a political statement and they may or may not teach a lesson in their texts. Mostly folk songs are music of the people, for the people, and by the people. As Louis Armstrong once quipped, "All music is folk music, I ain't never heard no horse sing a song." I recall my dad singing folksongs with his guitar and my mother harmonizing in the background. Those were good times and the memories have stayed with me forever.

I am not a luddite and I love our advanced world of technology with media at our fingertips, instant information whenever we want it, and communication of all types with anyone at anytime. But if I could move back time or bring something back to our culture or at least alter our lives in some sort of way, it would be to return to the idea of using folksongs to express the events of our lives. For some anachronistic joy, go to youtube (a wonderful new technology, by the way), and listen to some Peter, Paul, and Mary, or Bob Dylan, or Pete Seeger or perhaps some more modern fare such as John Denver, Paul Simon, Jim Croce, or Bruce Springsteen.

Or take a journey through the world by finding folksongs from various countries such as Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or France or Ukraine. Perhaps a few moments in the Far East to enjoy some music of the people or experience the worship practices of cultures from Africa. It is all grand and points to a world of authenticity of expression of the people. In a way and a bit of a stretch, folk music is the ideal way to understand organizational communication and the application of sensemaking. Folk music in its purest form attempts to give broad meaning to the joys and challenges of life by applying comprehensive knowledge blended with emotion and intuition. Maybe organizations and leadership could learn from the music of the people.

Friday, June 07, 2013

What makes music "Classical"?

I just read a short piece discussing what makes a book or an author a classic. In the article, the author wryly mentions that denouncing particular classics has become a past time for professors and journalists to receive attention or at least a publication (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/05/canon-fodder-denouncing-the-classics.html). As I was reading through this, I began to think in terms of music and composers. In academia we have settled on the "canon" of music literature and are comfortable with those nebulous decisions passed down through generations. We erroneously call this music "classical" in that the music has become classic over a period of time. Unfortunately there is a confusion with the term classical due to its usage in art, literature, architecture and music as a time period or, in some cases, a style. Nevertheless, for this discussion, the term "classical" will be used synonymously with the term "canon" as referencing acceptable music for academic study.

To be fair, the greatest test of worth in art is the test of time. When a composition or a composer "makes it," we discuss and listen to that person or the piece of music regardless of how long ago it was created. Shakespeare is great today just as it was during his time. Beethoven is still worth studying and performing in spite of not having any new works since his death in 1827. Many composers have withstood the test of time and are performed today on a regular basis, with audiences finding meaning in their music and willing to support the music not due to its reputation but rather to its actual quality. This makes absolute sense and is to be valued beyond its commercial value and into its internal accomplishments.

But the canon of literature is changing, as it should, with an unusual form of crowdsourcing that is difficult to understand and codify. The people are redesigning what it means to be classical. At one time people simply accepted the decision of the "experts" that a specific work of art is great or that a particular artist is deemed the finest in the field. When it comes to evaluating art, the combined opinions of experts, educated people, time, and an awareness of concepts and interests working together form artistic worth. In a way we trust the art expert who claims Rodin to be a great sculptor, but in other ways it is easy to agree upon studying a Rodin sculpture and seeing its precision and feeling the power in the piece.

But what happens if people become uninterested in the music of Beethoven or Mozart, Bach or Brahms? What happens if large amounts of people no longer trust the "experts" in the field and instead decide they prefer a different type of art? What will we do as academic musicians if the music of Mozart no longer has substantial meaning in the world to most people? How do we deal with our conviction that Mozart is essential listening and worthy of study if most people feel rather ho-hum about Mozart's music? In a way, this is catastrophic. If we have spent our lives regaling the plays of Shakespeare as vital literature for everyone and suddenly "everyone" or at least a majority disagrees, then we run the risk of acknowledging we were wrong and will face the real fear that Shakespeare will disappear. Unacceptable in either case.

"Classical" is not determined historically by scholars or experts, it is determined by you and me and by the 6 billion people who inhabit the earth. How many times have I told people about a great work of art or play or piece of music or movie and expressed my unbridled enthusiasm with joyful zeal only to realize that I was somewhat singular in my view? While there is no problem with my preference, I also must accept, at least to an extent, that my views are my own and while sometimes broadly embraced, also sometimes only minimally loved. In the end, the canon we scholars so love is decided by the people. This is as it should be. I may often disagree with people's love of certain art or literature but I cannot denounce the popularity of the work itself.

For example, I have no particular love nor respect for the Canon in D by Pachelbel. I find it to be excessively dull and repetitive, totally lacking in creativity and expression. If I never hear the piece again, I will be very happy. Yet, obviously, my views are my own and I must live in my own strange bubble of what I deem as worthy art since the Canon in D is so popular. It is heard in weddings ad nauseum and seems to be loved by all--much to my confusion and disdain. Oh well, I lose on this one!

My point is not to disparage the tastes of the masses, but instead to reflect on how the masses determine the worth over time, for better or worse. If music by Joseph Haydn does eventually fall into the black hole of extinction, which will not surprise me, then scholars will need to accept it. If the hymn And Can It Be becomes a never performed hymn in church, which may already be true to an extent, then hymn lovers, of which I am, will need to accept it. If art and literature of the past become museum pieces without great merit in today's world, then so be it. I may not like it and I may continue to fight to keep it, but in the end worthy art is determined over time by virtue of its broad acceptance.

"Classical" is made by you and me.