What is pOD? 1 WHAT IS ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FROM A PROCESS WORK PERSPECTIVE? An Interview Study Using Qualitative Methods A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MASTER OF ARTS IN CONFLICT FACILITATION AND ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE from THE PROCESS WORK INSTITUTE Portland, Oregon by Heike Hamann December 2007 What is pOD? 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thi st he s i swou l dn ote xi s ti fi twe r enotf o rDa wnMe nk e n’ sdr e a ma b outc r e a t i nga Ma s t e r ’ spr og r a mmef oc u s i ngont het he o r ya ndme t ho dsof Worldwork –the Master of Arts in Conflict Facilitation and Organisational Change (MACFOC). I am enormously grateful to her for this dream, and to the many people, including Julie Diamond, who made this dream become a reality. You have changed my life. Thank you. My thankfulness flows onto Arny Mindell, for creating Process Work and Worldwork, and with it this amazing community of teachers and students. A huge thank you to Caroline Spark, for being there with me along the whole journey as my thesis supervisor –I cannot find the words to describe the breadth, depth and constancy of support and love I felt from you. Thank you for guiding me, challenging me, helping me clarify my thoughts and nursing me through the frustrations and tiredness. I am indebted to the four study participants –Lesli Mones, Max Schupbach, Julie Diamond and Stephen Schuitevoerder –for generously sharing some of their experiences, thoughts, ideas and discoveries about the topic. To Katje Wagner, my friend and fellow researcher, who inspired me to do academic research in the first place, and who could relate to my experiences, and share her learnings. Thank you for your support and for being there when I first experienced the pa i no fha vi nga b a ndo ne dmy‘ i nn e ra ut hor i t y ’ ,a n dhandling the complicated juggling act required to embrace its first return. What is pOD? 3 I am grateful to Dawn, who worked and continues the not-always-the-most pleasant work with me as my inner authority finds a place in me and the world. And I am thankful for her critical mind in reading and engaging with this thesis, and knack of unearthing the incongruencies. To Lesli, whose excitement for the topic meets my own, and whose openness to learning blows me away. And for her never ending support of me in so many facets of my life. Thank you. To my study committee –Caroline, Lesli and Dawn –I am grateful to you for all the t hi ng sI ’ vea l r e a dyme nt i one da ndf orhe l pi ngmec r y s t a l l i s ea nds h a r pe nmyi d e a s . Brett Hardin, my partner, thank you for being with me on this journey, as a bouncing bo a r df ori d e a sa ndf orke e pi ngupt hec o ns t a ntme s s a g ei nt hef i na lpha s e sof“ g e tt h a t &*^ %t h i ngdon e ” ! And last, but not least, to the first MACFOC Cohort, with whom I learned and grew, and for being excited by this topic and its early findings. What is pOD? 4 ABSTRACT This qualitative study explores the question of what organisational development is from a Process Work perspective. It does so by interviewing four Process Workers who identify as working with organisations, and based on their responses to a set of open ended qu e s t i o ns ,r e p or t so nf i n di ng si nt hr e ea r e a s :( 1 )‘ I de a sBe h i n dpOD’( p r oc e s s -oriented organisational development) describes how pOD is the application of Worldwork to organisations, with Worldwork providing the concepts and tools practitioners use; (2) ‘ Appl i c a t i onsofpOD’l i s t st hewi d er a ng eofor g a ni s a t i onspa r t i c i pa n t sha vewor k e d wi t h ,a n dt h et y pe sofpr ob l e mst he ye nc o unt e r ;a nd( 3)‘ pODi nPr a c t i c e ’pr e s e nt sthe phases that practitioners go through when working with organisations. Based on these findings a pOD Model is proposed, which suggests that pOD = Worldwork (background philosophy) + pOD Practice (phases of working with an organisation). What is pOD? 5 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................ 2 ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ 4 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 9 Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 9 Overview of Chapters ................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 12 Process-oriented Organisational Development............................................................. 12 Organisational Development ........................................................................................ 18 OD Process................................................................................................................ 19 Entering and contracting ....................................................................................... 20 Diagnosing. ........................................................................................................... 21 Planning and implementing change. ..................................................................... 21 Evaluating and institutionalising change. ............................................................. 22 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 23 Method Overview ......................................................................................................... 23 Philosophical Framework ......................................................................................... 24 Research Strategy...................................................................................................... 26 Method Details.............................................................................................................. 27 Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 28 Sample selection. ...................................................................................................... 28 Study participants.................................................................................................. 29 Data collection method. ........................................................................................ 30 Interview questions. .............................................................................................. 30 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 31 Transcribing interviews. ....................................................................................... 31 Data management.................................................................................................. 32 Analysis process.................................................................................................... 33 Quality Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 35 Role of the Researcher .............................................................................................. 36 Soundness of Study................................................................................................... 40 Reliability.............................................................................................................. 40 Internal validity..................................................................................................... 41 External validity.................................................................................................... 42 Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................. 43 Informed Consent.................................................................................................. 43 Confidentiality and anonymity. ............................................................................ 43 Data Protection...................................................................................................... 44 Duality of roles. .................................................................................................... 44 Intellectual property. ............................................................................................. 44 What is pOD? 6 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 45 Number of participants. ........................................................................................ 45 Number of case examples. .................................................................................... 46 Participant selection method. ................................................................................ 46 Time limitations. ................................................................................................... 46 Age of data. ........................................................................................................... 47 Lack of researcher experience. ............................................................................. 47 Multiple relationships. .......................................................................................... 48 Chapter 4 FINDINGS –Ideas Behind pOD .................................................................. 49 Defining pOD................................................................................................................ 50 pOD in a Nutshell ..................................................................................................... 50 Isomorphicness ......................................................................................................... 52 New Application, Not a New Field........................................................................... 53 To pOD or not to pOD? –The Development Process .............................................. 54 One Paradigm in the Background –Worldwork....................................................... 55 pOD Concepts............................................................................................................... 58 Organisations as Living Organisms .......................................................................... 59 Process Structure of Organisations ........................................................................... 59 Primary process, secondary process and edges..................................................... 59 Field, roles and ghost roles. .................................................................................. 60 Deep Democracy and Eldership................................................................................ 62 Rank and Power ........................................................................................................ 62 Holographic Principle and Levels of Work .............................................................. 64 Myths ........................................................................................................................ 65 pOD Tools..................................................................................................................... 67 Wha t ’ st h ePr oc e s s ?.................................................................................................. 67 Using client understanding of issue as diagnostic. ............................................... 68 Client as reflection of organisation. ...................................................................... 68 Consultant as missing role in organisation. .......................................................... 69 Consultant being dreamt up by organisation. ....................................................... 69 Interviews to sense the field.................................................................................. 70 Structural Viewpoint on Issues ................................................................................. 70 Marginalised aspects becoming problematic. ....................................................... 71 Disturber as awakener........................................................................................... 72 Personal edges leading to organisational edges. ................................................... 72 Unfolding the Process ............................................................................................... 73 Framing from the viewpoint of the primary process. ........................................... 73 Process pointing to the intervention...................................................................... 74 Consultant going over organisational edges. ........................................................ 74 Representing ghost roles and addressing edge figures. ........................................ 74 What is pOD? 7 Chapter 5 FINDINGS –Applications of pOD .............................................................. 77 Organisations Where pOD is Practiced ........................................................................ 77 Organisational Problems and Issues ............................................................................. 79 Organisational Levels ............................................................................................... 79 Personal Issues .......................................................................................................... 80 Interpersonal Issues................................................................................................... 80 Organisational Issues ................................................................................................ 84 Presenting Issues....................................................................................................... 86 Chapter 6 FINDINGS –pOD in Practice ...................................................................... 87 Steps –Do they Exist? .................................................................................................. 87 Case Examples .............................................................................................................. 89 Mone s ’ sCa s eExa mp l e–Fortune 500 Company..................................................... 90 Sc hu pba c h’ sCa s eExa mpl e–Combination of Organisations.................................. 93 Di a mo nd’ sCa s eExa mpl e–Small Company........................................................... 96 Sc hu i t e v oe r de r ’ sCa s eExa mpl e–Non-profit Educational Organisation................. 99 Summary of Case Examples ................................................................................... 102 Case Example/OD Process Comparison................................................................. 105 pOD Phases................................................................................................................. 106 Entering and Contracting ........................................................................................ 107 Diagnosing .............................................................................................................. 111 Planning and Implementing Change ....................................................................... 113 Evaluating and Institutionalising Change ............................................................... 114 POD Phases Using Process Work Terminology..................................................... 116 pOD Interventions....................................................................................................... 118 Interventions Overview........................................................................................... 118 Personal Interventions............................................................................................. 121 Interpersonal Interventions ..................................................................................... 122 Organisational Interventions................................................................................... 123 Group Process Method Details ............................................................................... 126 Chapter 7 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 130 Findings Overview and Discussion ............................................................................ 130 Ideas Behind pOD................................................................................................... 130 Applications of pOD ............................................................................................... 133 pOD in Practice....................................................................................................... 134 pOD Interventions................................................................................................... 136 pOD Model ................................................................................................................. 137 Development or Change?............................................................................................ 142 What is pOD? 8 Chapter 8 CONCLUSION........................................................................................... 144 Review of Study.......................................................................................................... 144 Contribution to the Field ............................................................................................. 150 Gap in Knowledge .................................................................................................. 150 Importance of Knowledge....................................................................................... 151 Contribution to the world.................................................................................... 151 Contribution to pOD consultants. ....................................................................... 151 Contribution to MACFOC. ................................................................................. 152 Contribution to Process Work credibility. .......................................................... 152 Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................................ 153 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 156 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 162 Appendix A –Participant Background Information ................................................... 163 Appendix B –Interview Transcripts........................................................................... 166 Appendix C –Te s c h ’ sGe n e r i cAp pr oach to Analysis ............................................... 210 Appendix D –Data Analysis Details .......................................................................... 212 Appendix E –Participant Consent Form .................................................................... 218 Appendix F –pOD in the Context of the General OD Field ...................................... 221 What is pOD? 9 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Process Work is a body of theory and practice with many applications, including working with individuals in various states of consciousness, couples and small and large groups in group processes. These applications, whilst still evolving, are mostly well developed. There are many practitioners practicing Process Work in these fields and they are generally well documented (Diamond & Jones, 2004; Mindell, 1999; Mindell, 2002a). Problem Statement The application of Process Work in organisations and the field of organisational development is an exciting, powerful and largely new area of work. While there are some people working in this field, they are in many ways pioneers and working out how to apply Process Work in this setting as they go. There is relatively little literature available about the application of Process Work to organisational development, as is discussed in the Literature Review. The Master of Arts in Conflict Facilitation and Organisational Change (MACFOC) was established in 2004, and includes teaching in the area of organisational change and development, which is conducted mostly through case presentation and discussion. Rather than presenting a theory of how to apply Worldwork in this setting, teaching in t hi spr og r a ma d opt s“ a ne xpe r i me nt a la ppr o a c hi nl ook i nga tn e wwa y st oi nt e g r a t e Worldwork theory and methods into organisational lif e ” ,r e c og n i s i ngt ha t“ Wor l dwor k c on c e pt sa ndt o ol sa r ej us tbe g i n ni ngt obeus e di nas y s t e ma t i cwa yt oor g a ni s a t i o ns ” (Process Work Institute, 2006, p.15). What is pOD? 10 This study seeks to further the process of developing process-oriented Organisational Development (pOD), by contributing to the emergence of theories and formal documentation of this field and to provide a snapshot of the stage of development that pOD is in now, in 2007. The lens through which this snapshot is taken is constructed from interviews that I conducted with four Process Work faculty members who identify as working with organisations. The interviews were conducted in late 2006 and early 2007. Ther e s e a r c hq ue s t i ont hi ss t u dys e e k st oa n s we ri s :“ Wha ti sor g a n i s a t i on a ld e ve l o pme nt from a Proce s sWor kp e r s pe c t i ve ? ” As this is a question of meaning, understanding and process, rather than a question of facts and figures, the problem is appropriate for qualitative research (Merriam, 2002, p. 19). More specifically, I adopted a qualitative approach to each phase of this interview study –research design, data collection and data analysis –within the philosophical framework of interpretive inquiry. My generic approach to thematic analysis was based on Merriam (2002) and Tesch (1990). Overview of Chapters This study is described in the seven subsequent chapters. Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature. Chapter 3 discusses the research method. Chapters 4 to 6 present and discuss study findings. Chapter 4 focuses on conceptual findings, Chapter 5 on the applications of pOD and Chapter 6 presents findings that relate to the practice of pOD. Chapter 7 reviews the findings, and proposes a pOD model. Chapter 8 concludes with a review of What is pOD? 11 the study, its implication for future research and its contribution to the field of processoriented organisational development. What is pOD? 12 Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews the knowledge relevant to this area of inquiry. It explores existing information about the topic of the study –process-oriented organisational development – and highlights the relative lack of literature available in this area. It then looks briefly at the literature available in the general field of organisational development, of which there is plenty. Additional review of literature is interspersed throughout the thesis, in the Methodology and the Findings sections. This placement is one of a variety of options recognised by qualitative research methodologists, as outlined by Jones (2005, p. 43). Process-oriented Organisational Development The findings of this study are organised into three areas –‘ I de a sBe hi ndpOD’ , ‘ Appl i c a t i onsofpOD’a nd‘ p ODi nPr a c t i c e ’ .Myr e vi e woft hel i t e r a t ur es ug g e s t st ha t there is some writing on the first area –both in books about Worldwork (Mindell, 1995) and on various websites (see Schupbach, 2006b and Diamond, n.d.b). Some applications of pOD are mentioned briefly in the books, and increasingly frequently so in the websites. The amount of information on the practice of pOD is mixed –both the books and the websites contain information about some interventions, for example, group process methods. There is less information about other interventions, such as coaching techniques. Information about the actual process of consulting to an organisation in the area of pOD –from the moment contact is made with the organisation, until the final What is pOD? 13 evaluation is complete, and all the phases in-between –is very limited, in both books and websites. As this study focuses on such a recent and developing field, the focus of this literature review is mostly on the availability of literature on pOD, with a review of some key writing this area (Mindell, 1992; Schupbach, 2006b). As is shown in this study, Worldwork theory forms the framework for process-oriented organisational development. However, while Worldwork theory is well developed and documented, there is almost no literature available in books or journals regarding its application to the area of organisational development –either in terms of where and when it is applied, or how it looks in practice. As is shown in this study, Process Work and Worldwork theory form the philosophical framework for process-oriented organisational development. However, while both Process Work and Worldwork theory are well developed and documented, there is almost no literature available in books or journals regarding their application in the area of organisational development –either in terms of where and when they are applied, or how that looks in practice. A number of books and manuscripts have been written about Process Work, and its de r i va t i vea p pl i c a t i o n,Wor l dwo r k ,whi c hi sa“ pr oc e s s -or i e nt e da p pr oa c ht og r o upwor k ” ( Di a mond&J o ne s ,2 004,p. 9) .Mi nd e l l ’ sbo ok sThe Year One (1989), The Leader as Martial Artist (1992), Sitting in the Fire (1995) and The Deep Democracy of Open Forums (2002a) all focus on the theory and applications of Worldwork. These include theories about viewing groups as living organisms, on the process structure of a group, What is pOD? 14 roles and ghost roles, deep democracy, eldership, rank and power and the levels of a group. Overviews of these theories are included in the pOD Concept section. References to working with organisations are harder to find in the existing Process Work l i t e r a t u r e .As c a nf o r‘ o r g a ni s a t i ona lde ve l opme nt ’o r‘ or g a ni s a t i ona lc ha ng e ’i nt he i nde xe soft h ea bov ebook sdr a wsabl a nk .‘ Or g a ni s a t i on’i sl i s t e di nThe Deep Democracy of Open Forums with about 10 entries. The Leader as Martial Artist refers the reader seeking references to ‘ o r g a ni s a t i on’t o‘ g r ou ps ’ .Sitting in the Fire makes no reference to organisations in its index. However, when reading these books, reference to organisations and organisational de v e l opme nta r eq ui t ef r e q ue nt , pa r t i c ul a r l yi nMi n de l l ’ sl a t e rwr i t i ng .The words ‘ or g a ni s a t i o n’a nd‘ g r o up’a r eus e di nt e r c ha ng e a bl y ,s ugg e s t i ngt h a tt het he or i e sr e l a t e d to groups, are also relevant to organisations. Businesses are a subset of groups, as are a couple, a family, a group of friends or a nation (1992, p. 14). Worldwork theories apply to them all. In The Leader as Martial Artist, both terms –groups and organisations –are used interchangeably, with groups being used as the more generic word. In his next book, Sitting in the Fire, Mindell refers mostly to groups. In The Deep Democracy of Open Forums the terms are generally used interchangeably again, with the reference to or g a ni s a t i o nsbe c omi ngmuc hmor ef r e que nt .Is a y‘ g e ne r a l l y ’t houg h, i nt ha tMi nd e l l does at one point differentiate between groups and organisations (2002a, p. viiii). Li k e wi s e ,onh i sa n dAmyMi nde l l ’ swe bs i t e ,h ede f i ne sWo r l dwor ka s“ as ma l la n dl a r g e group processwork method that uses Deep Democracy to address the issues of groups and What is pOD? 15 or g a ni s a t i o nsofa l lk i nd s ”( Mi nde l l ,2 006 ) .Th i ss uggests the definition of an organisation is in flux in his writing, and moving from the more generic use of the word, a sde f i ne da s“ ag r oupo fp e opl ei de n t i f i e dbyas ha r e di n t e r e s to rpu r pos e ,e . g .a bu s i n e s s ”byEnc a r t aDi c t i o na r y( Enc a r t a ,2 007 )t os pecifically talking about businesses or corporations. The important point here is that the Worldwork theories apply to organisations, however they are defined. Much has been written about these theories by Mindell, his associates and students of Process Work. The detailed steps of how to apply Worldwork to conducting an open forum is the subject of the book, The Deep Democracy of Open Forums (Mindell, 2002a). Similar details, about how to apply Worldwork in consulting to an organisation, or process-oriented organisational development, have not yet been documented. A search of the internet shows a growing quantity of information available about Worldwork and its application to working with organisations. The websites of Arnold and Amy Mindell, the Deep Democracy Institute (DDI), Julie Diamond, Max Schupbach, Wikipedia, the Worldwork Australia website, and others all describe the main theories of Worldwork, to various levels of detail, with some giving glossaries of the main terms. Thus , onc ea g a i n,t he‘ I de a sBe h i ndpOD’a r equi t ewe l ldoc ume n t e d .Ma nyma ke reference to areas in which Worldwork is applied, often listing organisational development as one of the applications. Some websites give examples of the types of organisations and types of issues to which Worldwork has been applied. Details about how Worldwork is applied in practice is available via a limited number of case studies. What is pOD? 16 While the information that gives an overview of Worldwork as applied to organisations (Schupbach, 2006c; Wikipedia, 2006) has been available for at least the last year, there has recently been a proliferation of web pages giving more detailed explanations of both Worldwork and its application in the area of organisations. This recent, positive development shows how rapidly the field is developing and is largely thanks to the work ofMa xSc hu pba c h.Sc hup ba c hh a sa l s or e c e nt l yha da na r t i c l ec a l l e d“ AMul t i di me n s i o na lCh a ng eMa na g e me n tMo de l ”pu bl i s h e di naGe r ma nor g a n i s a t i o na l development journal. A summary of the information available on several websites follows. Ar nol da n dAmyMi nde l l ’ swe bs i t e( 2 006 )g i ve sa nove r vi e wo fWor l dwor kt e r ms , concepts and skills. The Deep Democracy Institute website gives an explanation of deep de moc r a c y ,de s c r i b i ngi ta st he“ ph i l os o phi c a lba s i soft heWo r l d wo r kpa r a d i g m”( DDI , 2007). Julie Diamond (Diamond, n.d.b) describes the theories of Worldwork elegantly and concisely, also suggesting that Worldwork is based on the concept of deep democracy. She discusses concepts of rank and power, openness to different communication styles, a ndt h eg r oupa sas e l for g a n i s i ngs y s t e m.Shede s c r i be sWor l dwor ka sa“ me t ho df or conflict resolution and mediation, organisational change and development, community development, leadership training, and faci l i t a t i onofg r o uppr oc e s s e sa ndpubl i cf o r ums ” . Tobe c omeaWor l dwor kf a c i l i t a t o r ,s hes a y s ,r e q ui r e sa n“ e xp e r i e nt i a la n ds e l f -reflective t r a i ni ng ”( Di a mon d,n . d . b ) . What is pOD? 17 Wikipedia (2006), in its entry on Process Work, gives a description of Process Work applications –a mongt he mi s“ Wor l dwor kwi t hbus i ne s s e s ,no n-profit organisations and g o ve r nme ntg r oup s ” ,g o i ngont ode s c r i b eWor l dwo r ka sa“ g l o ba lt h e or y ,t ha tha s universal categories, that can describe and analyse all organisational processes. Many organisations are using this method beyond conflict resolution or dealing with disturbances for leadership development, strategy development, merger-acquisition ne g ot i a t i o ns ,e t c . ”Th i se n t r yi nt oWi k i p e di awa sa dde don21Aug us t ,2 006 . Ma xSc hu pba c h’ swe bs i te is the most comprehensive in the area of pOD. As well as providing a great deal of Worldwork theory and a glossary of terms (Schupbach, 2006a), hi swe bs i t ei sl a i douti ns uc hawa yt ha ti tdi f f e r e nt i a t e sbe t we e n‘ ThePa r a di g m’ ,‘ The Pr a c t i c e ’a n d‘ TheAp pl i c a t i o n’o fWor l dwor k .Sc h upb a c h’ shomepa g e( Sc hup ba c h , 20 06b ) ,l i n k st oa ni n f or ma t i vea r t i c l ec a l l e d“ Tr a ns f o r ma t i o ni nOr g a ni s a t i o ns , Communities, Business, and the Public Space –An introduction into the perspective, methodology and attitudes in Wo r l dwor k ”( Sc h upb a c h, 200 6c )i nwh i c hheg i ve sa n overview of Worldwork and lists many examples of its application in organisations and some of the innovations it brings. The home page also links to two organisational case descriptions –one working with a Fortune 500 company, the other with a large correctional facility. Und e r‘ ThePa r a di g m’me nuo nSc h upba c h’ swe bs i t ea r et h es ub-menus of perspective, methodology, attitudes and personal development, each with an essay describing different aspects of Wor l dwor k .‘ ThePr a c t i c e ’me nul i s t sc ha ng ema na g e me nt ,l e a de r s hi p, facilitation, strategy, teamwork, conflict resolution, diversity, inner work and exercises as sub-me nus .‘ TheApp l i c a t i on ’h a sbe e nor g a ni s e di nt ot hef ol l owi ngs ub -menus: What is pOD? 18 organisational development, business, public space, government, NGO, political, social activisim, grassroot, mediation and urban and regional development. The website is still un de rc on s t r uc t i o nf o rt he‘ ThePr a c t i c e ’a n d‘ TheAp pl i c a t i o n’ ,wi t hnoi nf or ma t i on being available yet in each of the sub-menus, showing again the cutting edge nature of this field. Sc hup ba c h ’ smo s tr e c e nta r t i c l e ,“ AMu l t i -di me n s i o na lCh a ng eMa na g e me n tMo de l ” ,i s published in the most recent edition of the German quarterly magazine “ Or g a n i s a t i o ns Ent wi c k l ung ”( 2 007 ) ,a nda va i l a bl eonhi swe bs i t e( Sc h upb a c h, 200 7) . Thea r t i c l e ’ ss y n ops i si sloosely translated as follows: Wor l dWor k ,a l s ok n owna sPr oc e s sWor k ,i sba s e do noneo fAr no l dMi n de l l ’ s developing, comprehensive models about collective transformation. The universal character of the model permits its application within the entire range of the change management field. This introductory article highlights the key points of the method and illustrates these by means of one of the interventions –the group process. Organisational Development Much literature exists about organisational development. Since the focus of this study is on organisational development from a Process Work perspective, I chose not to extend this literature review to the field of organisational development literature as a whole. However, in analysing and discussing my findings in relation to the practice of pOD, two titles were particularly helpful in outlining a basic OD process: Organisation What is pOD? 19 Development and Change (Waddell, Cummings &Worley, 2004) and Flawless Consulting (Block, 2000). Waddell, Cummings and Worley (2004, p. 37) propose a “ g e ne r a lmode lofpl a nne dc h a ng e ”wh i c hde s c r i be st hepr a c t i c eo fODa ndi sc ompr i s e d of four major activities –entering and contracting, diagnosing, planning and i mpl e me n t i ngc ha ng e ,e va l ua t i nga n di n s t i t ut i ona l i s i ngc h a ng e .Bl o c k ’ s( 200 0)mode l echoes that of Waddell et al (2004), although he does not speak about their fourth activity, evaluating and institutionalising change. Waddell eta l ’ smode li nr e l a t i ont ot he practice of OD will now be described in further detail. OD Process Waddell et al. (2004) describe three theories of planned change –Le wi n’ sc ha ng emod e l , the action research model and contemporary adaptations to the action research model. Ba s e dont h e s e ,t he ypr opo s ea“ g e ne r a lmo de lofp l a nne dc ha ng e ” , whi c hIr e f e rt oa st h e ‘ ODPr oc e s s ’ , whi c hi sma deupoft he“ f ou rb a s i ca c t i v i t i e s ”a l r e a dyn ot e d( p. 37) : 1. entering and contracting 2. diagnosing 3. planning and implementing change 4. evaluating and institutionalising change Waddell et al. (2004) suggest that while these activities typically occur in the sequence listed, there is considerable overlap and feedback between them (p. 37). Each of the activities are summarised below. What is pOD? 20 Entering and contracting. According to Waddell et al. (2004), this first step of the ‘ pl a nn e dc ha ng e ’pr o c e s soc c u r swhe noneo rmo r ek e yma na g e r sora dmi ni s t r a t or ss e ns e there is either a need for improvement or a problem needs to be addressed in their organisation, department or group (p. 76). Entering is made up of three steps –clarifying the problem or opportunities, identifying who the relevant client is and choosing an OD practitioner (p. 77). Theor g a n i s a t i o nma ybes pe c i f i ca b outwha tt h e‘ p r e s e nt i ngpr o bl e m’i s , s uc ha s absenteeism or a change in market conditions, or it may be more general such as a need to be more effective. Sometimes the presenting problem is stated in the form of a solution, such as needing team building. The presenting problem may just be a symptom of underlying issues. Clarifying the issue may involve preliminary data collection, in the form of interviewing key members and examining company records (p. 77). Identifying the relevant client –normally those who can directly impact the change –is important at this stage of the process. This ensures there is buy in from them to enter into an OD process (p. 78). Choo s i nga nODpr a c t i t i on e rr e qui r e st h eor g a n i s a t i o nt of i ndo uta b outt hepr a c t i t i o ne r ’ s experience and competence –both technical and interpersonal. It needs to check whether the practitioner approaches the organisation with openness and requires a diagnosis phase, or whether the practitioner has a program that he or she applies to all organisations. The practitioner is also responsible for ensuring there is a match between themselves and the organisation and its problems (p. 79). What is pOD? 21 Contracting may be formal or informal, and includes three areas –clarifying what each party expects to gain from the OD process, committing resources to the process and establishing the ground rules for working together, such as confidentiality (p. 82). The decision about whether to proceed or not with the OD process occurs here (p. 85). Diagnosing. Diagnosing is described by Waddell et a l . ( 2 004 ,p. 87)a st he“ pr o c e s sof assessing the functioning of the organisation, department, group or job to discover the s ou r c e sofpr obl e msa n da r e a sf ori mp r ove me nt ” .I ft hi ss t e pi sd onewe l l ,i tp oi nt s towards the interventions required to improvet h eo r g a ni s a t i on ’ se f f e c t i ve ne s s .I t involves collecting and analysing data about the current operations and feeding information about problems and opportunities back to managers and organisation. Planning and implementing change. According to Waddell et al. (2004) this stage of the OD Process is a joint activity conducted between the OD practitioner and the or g a ni s a t i o n.The yd e s i gni nt e r ve n t i on st h a ts u i tt h eor g a n i s a t i ona ndt hec ha ng ea g e nt ’ s skills and make plans to implement these interventions (p. 38). Waddell et al. (2004) suggest interventions fall into four major categories (p. 39): 1. Interpersonal interventions, which describe interventions associated with human processes (p. 160); 2. Technostructural interventions, which focus on the organisation’ ss t r u c t u r ea nd ‘ t e c hn ol ogy ’ ,me a n i ngj obde s i g n( p .16 2) ; What is pOD? 22 3. Human resource management interventions, which are designed to integrate pe o pl ei n t oor g a n i s a t i on st o“ i mpr o veme mbe rpe r f or ma nc ea ndwe l l ne s s ”( p. 39) ; and 4. Strategic interventions, which focus onl i nk i ngt he“ t h ei n t e r na lf u nc t i oni ngo ft he organisation to the larger environment and transform the organisation to keep pa c ewi t hc ha ng i ngc ondi t i ons ”( p .16 3) . Thi ss t a g eoft heODpr oc e s si n c l ude s“ ma na g i ngt h ec ha ng epr oc e s s ”( p .39 )whi c h requires the OD practitioner to work with the resistance to change, create a vision of the de s i r e df u t u r es t a t e ,g a i npo l i t i c a ls u ppo r tf ort h e s ec ha ng e sa n dma na g e“ t h et r a n s i t i ono f t heor g a ni s a t i o nt o wa r dst he m”( p. 168 ) . Evaluating and institutionalising change. Evaluation of the OD interventions implemented is a two-fold process: the first is evaluating and feeding back to the organisation, the effectiveness of the implementation of the intervention –is the intervention being implemented as intended? The second checks to see whether the expected results are being achieved or not. With this information, decisions about whether the changes should continue, be modified or stopped can be made (Waddell et al., 2004, p209). Change is institutionalised by reinforcing successful changes through feedback, rewards and training (Waddell et al., 2004, p39). What is pOD? 23 Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY The aim of this study was to further the process of developing process-oriented Organisational Development (pOD), by contributing to the emergence of theories and formal documentation of this field. This chapter introduces qualitative inquiry as the methodological framework of this study. It begins with an overview of the research method, explaining the philosophical framework and research strategy in practical and theoretical terms. It then describes the details of the method, including the data collection and data analysis processes. The chapter concludes with a review of the quality criteria applied to the evaluation of the soundness of this study, including making explicit the role of the researcher, ethical considerations and limitations of the study. Method Overview Fi nd i ngone ’ swa yt hr o ug ht h ema z eofr e s e a r c hme t ho dsa ndt e r mi no l ogyi squi t ea challenge for the first-time qualitative researcher, or for anyone reading about qualitative research for the first time. Hence, a brief methodological overview follows. A research method encompasses the philosophical framework, research strategy and the related methods used to conduct a research study. The philosophical framework defines the philosophy about knowledge that underlies the study –does knowledge equal objective facts, or is it about meaning? This is sometimes referred to as the epistemological underpinnings. The research strategy is also known as the theoretical orientation and the related methods are the details about how one generates and analyses data. The present study is a qualitative interview study (Merriam, 2002), within the What is pOD? 24 philosophical framework of interpretive inquiry. It adopts a generic qualitative approach to research design, data generation (interviewing) and data analysis (thematic analysis) based on Merriam (2002), and Tesch (1990). Philosophical Framework In academic research, it is not possible to choose a research method or design any research before first asking yourself what your perspective on knowledge is. Is knowledge something you can effectively count and measure, always? Or is it something that is affected by context, time and the subjectivity of the researcher? The answer to these philosophical questions impact the type of research you do. I fy oube l i e v et hef o r me r ,t ha ti st ha tt hewor l d,o rr e a l i t yi sa“ f i xe d ,s i ng l e , a g r e e du pon , orme a s u r a bl ephe n ome non”( Me r r i a m, p.3 )a nd“ i nde pe n de ntoft hemind that seeks to k n owi t ”( J one s ,20 05, p.2 5)t h e ny o uha veapo s i t i vi s tvi e wpoi nta ndy ourr e s e a r c hi s likely to be quantitative in nature. I fy oube l i e v et ha tt hel a t t e ri sc l os e rt o‘ t het r ut h’ ,a ndt ha t“ t he r ea r emul t i p l e constructions and interpret a t i on so fr e a l i t yt ha ta r ei nf l uxa n dt h a tc h a ng eove rt i me ” (Merriam, p. 4), then you have a relativist viewpoint and your research strategy is likely to be qualitative in orientation. A clear way of differentiating quantitative and qualitative research is via the following table, based on the work of Sanghera (n.d.) and Merriam (2002). What is pOD? 25 Quantitative Research Qualitative Research Positivist philosophical framework Relativist philosophical framework See reality as static Sees reality as dynamic Is objective Is subjective Counts and measures things Searches for meaning Uses a large sample size Uses a small sample size Uses instruments Researcher is instrument Statistical analysis Inductive analysis Attempts to find universal laws Attempts to understand something in depth In my case, my philosophical position depends on what I am researching –I believe some knowledge lends itself to being counted and quantified –and much of my work as an engineer has fallen into this category. To obtain other knowledge, particularly knowledge pertaining to subjective human experience, I believe a less black and white, more meaning-based analysis is more useful. This puts me in the category of the ‘ pr a g ma t i s t s ’( Pa t t on, 200 2,p .72 ) ,wi t hmy“ c hoi c eo fph i l o s oph i c a lp e r s pe c t i ve… determined by the degree to which that perspective is useful in a specific knowledge c on t e xt ”( J one s , 200 5,p .26 ) . What is pOD? 26 In the present exploration of process-oriented organisational development from the viewpoint of several key Process Work practitioners in the field of organisational development, I have taken a relativist philosophy philosophical framework and have chosen to do qualitative research. Research Strategy Qualitative research has many different strategies and procedures, born of the different disciplines that conduct qualitative studies (Merriam, 2002, p. 6). These have been organised in many different ways, and sometimes go by different names depending on the writer of the qualitative texts. I have chosen to use Merriam (2002) as a guide, and f ol l owi nghe rc a t e g or i s i n gs y s t e mha vec hos e nt h e‘ b a s i ci n t e r p r e t i v equa l i t a t i v es t u dy ’ (p. 6) as my research strategy. This is one of eight approaches she describes. While all of the approaches have the common attributes of qualitative research, each has a s ome wha td i f f e r e ntf oc us ,r e s u l t i ngi n“ va r i a t i on si nh owt h er e s e a r c hqu e s t i o nmi g htbe a s k e d,s a mpl es e l e c t i o n,d a t ac ol l e c t i o na nda n a l y s i s ”( Me r r i a m,2 002 ,p. 6) . According to Merriam (2002, p. 4-5), there are four common attributes that are true for all eight approaches. The first is that the researcher is seeking to understand the meaning that people have made about their world and experiences. Secondly, the primary instrument for data collection and analysis is the researcher. Thirdly, the process is inductive. This means the researcher immerses themselves in the details of the data, looking for important patterns and themes and interrelationships (Patton, 2002, p. 41), from which they can build concepts, hypotheses and theories. The last common attribute What is pOD? 27 is that words and pictures are used to convey what the researcher has learned about the topic of study –t hep r o duc toft hequa l i t a t i ver e s e a r c hi s‘ r i c h l yde s c r i pt i ve ’ . All of these attributes are true for this study. What gives this study its own focus are the related methods –the way the samples were selected and the data generated and analysed. In this study, data generation is via qualitative interviewing –the data are elicited through open-ended questions asked duringi n t e r vi e ws ,a n d“ c a pt ur ed i r e c t qu ot a t i o nsa bo utp e op l e ’ spe r s o na lpe r s pe c t i v e sa nde xpe r i e nc e s ”( Pa t t on, 200 2,p .40 ) . Pu r pos e f u ls a mp l i ngi sus e di nt hi sr e s e a r c h ,wi t has ma l lg r ou pofpe op l e“ pur po s e f ul l y selected for the quality of insights they are likely to reveal about the phenomenon of i nt e r e s t ”( J one s , 200 6,p .10 ) .Th ed a t ai sa na l y s e dus i ngt h eg e ne r i ca pp r oa c ht o thematic analysis suggested by Tesch (1990). Method Details Qualitative researchers have been criticised for not applying their research skills in the presentation of their own methods (Chenail, 1995). Given qualitative researchers make a lot of decisions about their research methods, says Chenail (1995), it is important that they talk openly about their decisions and the rational behind them. He goes onto say t ha t“ i ti si nt hi ss pi r i tofope nne s st ha tt r u s ti sbui l tb e t we e nt her e s e a r c he ra ndt he reader. It is not a matter of the researcher simply telling the reader that a study is valid or reliable for that qualitative researc hs t u dyt obeva l i dorr e l i a bl e ” .I nt hi sn e xts e c t i onI talk in detail about my data collection and analysis strategies, and my rational for choosing them. What is pOD? 28 Data Collection Data in qualitative research can come from interviews, observations or document analysis (Jones, 2005, p. 47). The data for this study came from interviews with four Process Work faculty members that identified as working with organisations. The interviews were between 60-90 minutes long, and conducted from September 2006 to March 2007. Sample selection. Working out who to interview about pOD, when pOD had not yet be e nde f i ne dwa sa ni nt e r e s t i ngc o nun dr um.I fId i d n’ ty e tk nowwha tpODwa s ,ho w could I identify who was doing pOD work? In the end I applied fuzzy logic type thinking to the problem –I started by brainstorming a list of Process Work faculty members who I believed worked in organisations, without c l e a r l yde f i ni ngwh a ts o r tof‘ or g a n i s a t i o ns ’Iwa sr e f e r r i ngt o( a l lor g a ni s a t i o nsorj u s t large corporations), or what I me a n tby‘ wor k i ngwi t h ’or g a ni s a t i ons .It he ni nv i t e de a c h of these 7 people to an interview. Of the 7 people I invited, 4 accepted, these being Lesli Mones, Max Schupbach, Julie Diamond and Stephen Schuitevoerder. Of the 3 people who declined, Arnold Mindell, the founder of Process Work, was not available to be interviewed during the research period. The other two potential interviewees declined because they did not identify as working with organisations –in one case because most of the work they had done had oc c ur r e dt ool onga g o, a ndi nt heot he r , be c a u s et he yf e l tt he yd i dn’ two r k with ‘ or g a ni s a t i o ns ’a ta l l . What is pOD? 29 The interviews with these four people and subsequent analysis of what they said, has e na bl e dmet og e tc l e a r e ra bou twha tpODi s , wha tt y peof‘ or g a n i s a t i o ns ’Ia mr e f e r r i ng t oa ndwha t‘ wor k i ngwi t h’or g a ni s a t i o nsme a ns .The r e f or ef ut ur er e s e a r c hi nt hi sa r e a can build on this study, with a more precise sample selection method as a result. Any subsequent research sample selection would build on that research and so on –hence the fuzzy logic parallel! Study participants. The four participants in the study are all faculty members of the Process Work Institute. A brief description of each of them and their involvement in organisational work follows. This information is drawn from the biography pages from their own or affiliated websites. Further background information is included in Appendix A. Lesli Mones, MA, Dipl.PW, is a process-oriented therapist in private practice and an organisational consultant and executive coach (Mones, n.d.). Max Schupbach, Ph.D., Dipl.PW, CPF, is a co-founder of Process Work. He is the founder and president of Maxfxx, a consulting and coaching firm that is active on all continents (Schupbach, 2006d). Julie Diamond, Ph.D., Dipl.PW, is a member of the original group who helped develop Process-oriented Psychology. She co-authored its international training program and its Master of Arts degree programs in Portland (Diamond, n.d.a). Stephen Schuitevoerder, Ph.D., Dipl.PW, is an international consultant, lecturer and facilitator. Stephen is the President of the Process Work Institute (Schuitevoerder, n.d.). What is pOD? 30 Data collection method. Open ended questions were asked during semi-structured interviews. With the exception of the first 10 minutes of the interview with Diamond, all interviews were audio taped, and transcribed. Notes were taken during the first 10 minutes of the interview with Diamond. Interviews with Mones and Schupbach were face-to-face, and those with Schuitevoerder and Diamond were conducted over the phone. The interviews with Mones and Schupbach occurred in September 2007, with Diamond in December 2006, and the interview with Schuitevoerder was conducted in March 2007. The questions listed below were used to structure the interview, with all participants being asked all of the questions. Various follow up questions were asked, as needed, to help the participant respond more fully or to clarify their responses. These probe questions varied from participant to participant. Interview questions. The following questions were asked in all of the interviews: 1. What sort of work do you do with organisations? a. What kind of organisations do you work with? b. What kind of problems do you work with? c. What's your role? (How i si tde f i ne df r omt hec l i e ntor g a ni s a t i o n’ ss i d e , how do you define yourself? How would you describe the work you do?) d. How long does your work normally go for? What is pOD? 31 2. How would you define process-oriented OD? (If I read about it on a flyer, what would it say?) a. Is coming in for 1-2 days to work on a problem, organisational development? 3. What are the steps of process-oriented OD? What does it look like from the moment contact is made between you and the organisation and when you leave the project? When it came to the actual interviews, I suggested to all participants that they answer the third question by picking a case study and taking me through the steps they followed. I made the decision to ask the questions as though I had no background in Process Work. I did this because I wanted to be able to convert this study into an article for publication in a non-Process Work journal, and wanted to hear from the participants how they would describe Process Work and pOD to a non-Process Work audience. Data Analysis The first step of the data analysis process was to transcribe the interviews –I decided to do this myself to enable me to get close to and familiar with the data. This was followed by working through a generic approach to inductive analysis, suggested by Tesch (1990). I used Microsoft Excel to manage my data. Transcribing interviews. I transcribed each of the interviews word for word from the audio recordings, as soon as possible after each interview was conducted. This What is pOD? 32 transcription process brought me close to the data and enabled me to record the insights I remembered having during the interviews alongside the insights I was having during the transcription process. These insights made it possible for me to identify areas to focus on during subsequent interviews. It is quite typical of qualitative research for initial insights about the data to emerge during the data collection and the early stages of data analysis phases, with subsequent data collection influenced by these insights (Patton, 2002, p. 436). Time stamps were included in the transcripts (as measured by time since the beginning of the interview), to enable easy cross-referencing back to the original recordings when needed. Iha vei nc l u de dt he‘ t i d i e dup’a nde di t e dve r s i onsoft he s et r a ns cripts in Appendix B, to enable readers to read for themselves what was said. By tidied up, I mean that I removed t he‘ t hi nk i ngwo r d s ’a nd‘ uhmsa n da hh s ’ .Fore xa mpl e ,t hef ol l owi ngve r ba t i m t r a ns c r i pt ,“ …a n dIwo r k e dont hep hon ewi t hmydi r e c t…wi t ht he consultant who br o ug htmei n… mydi r e c t… t hepa r t ne ro nt h epr oj e c t ”woul dbe c ome ,“ …a ndI wor k e dont heph onewi t ht h ec ons u l t a n twhob r oug h tmei n,mypa r t ne ront hepr o j e c t ” . Is e ntt h e s e‘ t i di e du p’t r a n s c r i p t st oe a c hpa r t i c i pa nt ,a n dt he nwor k e d with them to edit the transcripts to ensure I represented the participants accurately, thereby enhancing the quality of the raw data I was working with. Data management. The data was managed during the analysis process using Microsoft Excel (Excel). Initially the transcripts were written in Microsoft Word (MSWord), and c on ve r t e dt ot a bl e swhi c he na bl e dt het r a ns c r i pt st ob ebr ok e ni n t o‘ c h unk sof i nf or ma t i on ’( Te s c h, 1990)byc r e a t i ngar owf ore a c hc h unk .Att hi spoi nti nt i me ,t h e ‘ c hu nk s ’we r eve r yl oo s e l yc r e a t e d,wi t hmor ep r e c i s e‘ c h unk i ng ’oc c u r r i n ga spa r to ft he What is pOD? 33 analysis process. The tables were then copied into Excel, and each chunk, which I later refer to as text segment, given its own unique number. Excel performed well as a tool to work with the data. Saving the files under new filenames at the various stages of the analysis enabled me to leave a clear history of the analysis process. This contributes the audit trail, whic h“ i na qualitative study describes in detail how data were collected, how categories were de r i ve d,a n dhowde c i s i onswe r ema det hr oug ho utt hei nq ui r y ”( Me r r i a m,1992 ,p. 27) . The naming convention used during the analysis process is as follows: Date that file was created (year, month, date) Analysis Phase number Description, initially of interview number and later of section name. Ane xa mpl eoft h i si s“ 070 415An a l y s i s4–p ODDe f i ni t i o n. xl s ” . Analysis process. This basic interpretive qualitative study uses a generic approach to analysis suggested by Tesch (1990) (included in Appendix C). This is made up of three main steps: 1. coding data, finding patterns, labeling themes and developing a category system; 2. convergence and divergence in coding and classifying; and 3. interpreting findings (Tesch, 1990). What is pOD? 34 Simply explained, thepr o c e s sofa na l y s i si nvo l v e sb r e a k i ngt h ed a t ai n t o‘ c h unk s ’ , almost as if the transcripts were printed out, read in their entirety and then cut into hundreds of slips of paper (text segments) –generally a number of sentences to a paragraph long. Each of these slips of paper are read again, and placed into piles, with all ‘ l i k e ’c hunk s / s l i p so fpa pe rputt og e t he r .Ea c hpi l eo fpa pe rs l i p si st h e nr e a da n dt h e me s generated for each pile. As these themes become clearer paper slips might be moved from one pile to another, or copied and placed in multiple piles. These themes become the findings of the study. The beauty of using Excel for the analysis process, rather than using paper and scissors, was that at every point in the analysis and writing stage it was easy to find where each text segment fit in the context of the overall interview. This was done using the unique number assigned to that particular text segment. Mya na l y s i spr oc e s swa s‘ ba s e d’upo nTe s c h( 1 990) ,i nt ha tIus e dhe ra na l y s i spr oc e s sas ag ui de l i n e ,r a t he rt ha na sas e tof‘ r u l e s ’t ha tIn e e de dt os t r i c t l yf o l l ow( Pa t t on ,20 02, p. 57). There were six phases of analysis: 1. Getting an Overview 2. Defining the Categories and Sub-Categories 3. Assigning Categories and Sub-Categories to Text Segments 4. As s e mb l i ngCa t e g or i e si n t o‘ Se c t i o ns ’ 5. Generation of Themes What is pOD? 35 6. Preparing MACFOC Presentation 7. Write-up The s ea na l y s i sp ha s e s , i n c l udi ngTe s c h ’ sc or r e s pondi nga na l y s i ss t e ps ,a r ede t a i l e di n Appendix D. The biggest difference between the analysis process I performed and the one suggested by Tesch (1990) relates to the quantity of data I had collected before starting the formal process of analysis. I had interviewed three of the four participants, and so completed most of my data collection, before beginning the process outlined above. All the interviews were complete before beginning phase 3 of the analysis. Tesch (1990) suggests beginning the data analysis process earlier in the data collection process, and follows a more iterative process, where the results of the data analysis inform the next round of data collection as late as phase 5 of the analysis. Quality Evaluation Anyone reading this research report needs to evaluate the quality of the research before being able to trust and rely on its findings, or to determine its applicability in the wider world. How sound was the method employed? What impact do I, the researcher, have on the findings? How ethically did I conduct the study? What are its limitations? Ultimately the decision is yours, the readers, and here I present some information to assist with that evaluation. The Method Details section describes with as much transparency as possible, the research process I followed and the thoroughness with which I analysed the data. My liberal use What is pOD? 36 of quotes from the interviews in the chapters on my findings, and the decision to include the interview transcripts in the appendix, gives readers the opportunity to see for themselves what participants said, and then decide whether the findings seem plausible or not and to determine the applicability of these findings to a broader setting. It is important to note that when I answer the research question about pOD, I am not writing about what the participants think pOD is, but what I understand pOD to be, based on what participants said in their interviews. Further, none of the findings are generalisable to a wider group of people than those interviewed in this study, since no random sampling procedures were used. Myo pe nne s sa bo utwh a tI ,a st he‘ r e s e a r c hi n s t r ume nt ’ ,br i ngt ot hes t udyhe l pson e understand the lens through which I see the world, and through which these findings are recorded. I also paid close attention to the ethics involved in this study, which further contributes to the soundness of my research (Merriam, 2002, p. 18). Finally, my discussion about the limitations of this study shows the areas where this study could have been improved. Role of the Researcher I nqua nt i t a t i ver e s e a r c h,‘ i ns t r ume nt s ’a r eus e dt ome a s ur ewha t e v e ri sbe i ngs t u died. A thermometer is used to measure temperature, and scales to measure weight. In qualitative r e s e a r c h ,t he‘ i ns t r ume n t ’i st her e s e a r c he r .Ibr i ngwi t hmet h ea bi l i t yt oobs e r v ea ndbe a wa r eofal o tmo r ef a c t o r st ha nat he r mome t e rors c a l e sc a n… a n dy e tIdon’ tha vet he objectivity of such instruments. Therefore anyone reading this study needs to get to know me a little –my training, my background, my experience as a researcher and my What is pOD? 37 relationship to the research topic –as these will inevitably influence my research process (Jones, 2005, p. 68). As an ex-‘ c o r p or a t e -pe r s o n’whog o te xc i t e dbyt h ede s p e r a t en e e df ora ndt hep ot e nt i a l power of Process Work in the corporate setting, I bring a lot of passion to this research. My background in engineering and my experience of working in corporations means I also bring a certain level of pragmatism to my role as researcher. In embarking on this s t udy ,Iwa nt e dt hi swo r kt ob ea s‘ p r a c t i c a la n dus e f ula spos s i b l e ’ , a ndt obeh i g hl y structured in the way it is presented. I started my professional working life as a mechanical engineer, working with some of the largest corporations in the world –Mars, who were and possibly still are the largest privately owned company on this planet, and Rio Tinto, a huge Australian mining corporation. I became indoctrinated by their values and principles, and learned to fit into t he i r‘ c ul t u r e ’ .Fi f t yt os i xt ypl u sh ourwe e k swe r et heor de ro ft heda y ,a n dmuc ha sI enjoyed my work, I struggled to find meaning in what I wa sdoi ng… a nds oIl e f t… t o become an Australian paragliding champion and to think about where my life was taking me. I had by then encountered Process Work, and recognised that its methods and philosophy ha dal ott oof f e rt hec o r por a t ewor l d… b utd i d n’ th a vet heun de r s t a nd i ngr e qu i r e dt o bring this into my work. So I became a Diploma student, and then, realising my particular passion for working with groups, enrolled in the Master of Arts in Conflict Facilitation and Organisational Change (MACFOC) programme, which in my mind promised to show me how to bring this work into organisations and how to apply What is pOD? 38 Worldwork in a setting which knows nothing about Process Work. It was the OC in the programme that most excited me, and when I realised that the concentration on and content of this component was not what I had imagined, I decided to find that out for myself. And thus, this study was born. By then I was back in the corporate world, working as a consultant, experiencing more corporations and their particular cultures, and doing so from a role that moves between be i nga n‘ out s i de r ’a nda n‘ i ns i d e r ’ .I ti sg e ne r a l l ymye ng i n e e r i ng , a ndi npa r t i c ul a rmy Process Improvement background, that gets me involved in the various projects, and of late I have been incorporating as much OD work as I am able. Process Improvement work focuses on making systems, in my case generally manufacturing systems, more efficient –by reducing the waste they generate, increasing their efficiency and uptime (times the machines are running) and improving the systems that interface between humans and machines. Many of the interventions I employed to do this are quality management tools, based on the work of Deming (1986). More r e c e n t l yI ’ vebe e nf oc u s i ngont heor g a ni s a t i o na lr e a s on swhy the manufacturing processes were not performing as expected. What was the root cause for the gradual downturn in their performance? What needed to change in the organisation in order to maintain the technical improvements coming out of the process improvement work, so that if I came back 2 years later, things would be running as I left them, or better? The root cause generally has something to do with people and the culture of the organisation – how things are done, how people communicate and work together, how they are supported. So here then was the opportunity to bring in other OD interventions into my What is pOD? 39 work –generally interpersonal interventions. With the completion of this study I hope to be able to bring in my OD work more overtly in how I mark e ta nd‘ s e l l ’my s e l f . This engineering/corporate background comes with some biases, assumptions and expectations. I have a bias for receiving and presenting information in a highly structured and logical manner, and made the assumption that the steps of pOD follow a linear process, at least at a high level. I have struggled at times as a student of Process Wor kt ou nde r s t a n dwha tI ’ v ebe e nt a ug ht–this is partly because of my need for more linearity in the way the theory is presented and my desire to have the context or use of the theory outlined before being given the details of that theory. I have an expectation that the information in this study can be presented in a practical and useful way. However, as a student of Process Work, I bring some balancing tendencies to this. I have a love of following the process and being curious about the unknown, and an understanding that processes are rarely ever just linear. My experience as an academic researcher is limited, and this is my first experience in qualitative research. While my work as an engineer has involved some large scale research projects, these have always been quantitative in nature. So whilst I was researching the topic of pOD, I was also learning how to conduct a qualitative enquiry, and struggling with my quantitative bias. Lastly, my love of Process Work also brings with it a bias, of wanting to put it in the best possible light. Balancing this is my emerging relationship with my critical nature –the one who can critically analyse things and clearly and dispassionately present the findings, whatever they are. I have tried to be aware of these biases in conducting this study, and What is pOD? 40 knowing that they cannot be removed altogether, have tried to make them explicit in the interest of the overall trustworthiness of my research. Soundness of Study There are different philosophical viewpoints about how to check for the soundness of a qualitative inquiry (Jones, 2005, p. 65). Traditional criteria, originating from quantitative studies have been modified to suit qualitative studies –although there is still considerable debate about how best to do this (Merriam, 2002, p. 24). The three traditional criteria are reliability, internal validity, and external validity. Reliability basically asks the question about how reliably the data has been interpreted – if someone else were to take this data, would they come up with the same results? Internal validity relates to whether you are measuring or observing what you think you are measuring or observing –this is relatively easy to check for if the measuring device is a tool –such as a thermometer. As long as the thermometer is in good working order and is being used correctly, it is a valid way of measuring temperature. As discussed above, it is somewhat more complicated in qualitative inquiry, where the researcher is the instrument. Finally, external validity is interested in how valid the information from this study is to other people and other situations. Reliability. So, how reliable is this study? Would someone else, using the same four interviews, come up with the same findings? This is hard to answer. However, there are a number of ways to make a qualitative study more reliable. Peer examination, being What is pOD? 41 clear about my position as researcher, and the audit trail are three such strategies (Merriam, 2002, p. 27). Having my research advisor and study committee review this thesis, constitutes a form of peer examination. As seen in the previous section, I have made my position in relation to this study explicit, providing detail of my background, and exploring my biases and assumptions, and my experience as a researcher. Throughout the study I also kept a t hor o ug ha u di tt r a i l .Whi l e“ wec a nn ote xpe c tot he r st or e pl i c a t eou ra c c oun t , t h ebe s twe cand oi se xpl a i nhowwea r r i v e da tourr e s ul t s ” ,wr i t e sDe y( 1 993 ,p. 251 ) .Ev e r y decision I made, and every question, insight and problem I had, was recorded in a method journal, which is almost as long as this thesis itself! My detailed description of my data collection and data analysis methods (see Appendix D) are drawn from this record. Finally, as a supplement to all of this, the entire interview transcripts are provided in Appendix B, and so readers can decide for themselves how reliable my findings are. Internal validity. Internal validity assesses whether you are observing what you think you are observing (Jones, 2005, p. 64). Or as Merriam (2002, p. 25) puts it, how congruent are the findings with reality? This opens up a can of worms, because the question of what is reality immediately comes up. However, this has already been addressed by choosing a relativist viewpoint as the philosophical framework –in which t he r ei sa na s s ump t i ono fmu l t i pl ec ha ng i ngr e a l i t i e s .I nqua l i t a t i v er e s e a r c h“ t he understanding of reality that is presented in the research findings is understood to be the r e s e a r c h e r ’ si n t e r pr e t a t i onoft h ep a r t i c i pa nt s ’u nde r s t a n di ng( no tt hepa r t i c i pa n t s ’a c t ua l un de r s t a nd i ng s ) ”( J one s ,20 05, p.6 4) . What is pOD? 42 So, what I have written in this study are my thoughts about the answer to the research qu e s t i o n.Thi si sba s e dont hepa r t i c i pa nt ’ svi e wsoft h et o pi c svi at h e i ra n s we r st ot he questions, which I have represented as accurately as I can. The synthesis of their answers into themes, is my synthesis and the findings based on these themes, my findings. Pe e re xa mi na t i ona n dt hea ud i tt r a i l ,wh i c hh a vea l r e a dydi s c us s e d,i nc r e a s eas t u dy ’ s internal validity. The interview transcripts were sent to each of the participants, with some changes being made by them, which enhanced the quality of the raw data I was working with, making it easier for me to interpret. External validity. How applicable are the findings of this study, based on interviews with four participants, to other people and other situations? Are the findings in this study an accurate reflection of the wider pOD field? The answer to the latter question is maybe, but it is not something that can be stated definitively in this study due to its lack of random sampling procedures. Qualitative research, by design, often has a small number of participants in order to study a phenomenon in-depth. It does not aim to ascertain what is generally true (Merriam, 2002, p. 28), as is the case with research based on large, randomly obtained samples. I nqua l i t a t i vei nqu i r y“ i ti st her e a de rwhoha st oa s k ,wha ti st h e r ei nt hi ss t udyt ha tIc a n a pp l yt omyo wns i t ua t i on ,a n dwha tc l e a r l yd oe sno ta p pl y ? ”( Wa l k e r ,19 80, p.3 4) ,t hu s assessing the external validity, or generalisability of the study. I have given as much detailed information (called rich, or thick description by qualitative researchers) as possible in the Findings, in order to enable each reader to decide for themselves whether findings from this study can be applied to their particular situation or not. What is pOD? 43 Ethical Considerations Ac c o r d i ngt oMe r r i a m( 200 2) ,“ A“ g o od”q ua l i t a t i ves t udyi son et h a tha sb e e n c on duc t e di na ne t h i c a lma nne r ”( p. 29) .Thi si n c l ude se n s ur i ngpa r t i c i pa n t sg i v e informed consent to the research, that confidentiality is kept and the data is protected, and any dual role aspects between the interviewer and interviewees are considered. Informed Consent. Part of my inexperience as a qualitative researcher shows up here, in the way I handled gaining consent. I was not totally clear about my research strategy before conducting the interviews. So when I asked and received verbal consent related to t hi ss t u dy , i twa snot‘ i nf or me dc on s e nt ’ ,a sIwa snota bl et oi n f o r mt hep a r t i c i p a nt s about the details of what they were consenting to. I remedied this by following up the verbal consent with a written consent form, which is attached in Appendix E. Confidentiality and anonymity. It is quite common for research participants to require confidentiality of information and to want to remain anonymous. Confidentiality about the organisations that participants worked with, and any other specified material, is maintained throughout this study. However, this study, being one of the first in this application of Process Work, made the issue of participant anonymity an interesting one. I wanted to credit participants with the knowledge they were sharing, and so had a mindset that I would be naming who I interviewed, and quoting them as part of the report. This was in fact the preference of some participants from the outset, and ul t i ma t e l ya l lpa r t i c i pa nt sc ho s et ob ei d e nt i f i e d .Howe v e rIha dn’ tc ons i d e r e dt hef l i p side of the relative newness of this application –that because it was a developing area it wa s“ no tac on c l us i ve , de f i ni t i v ea r e na ” .The r e f or e ,i tmi g htb ed i f f i c u l tf orpa r t i c i p a nt s What is pOD? 44 to stand behind the things they said, as they were learning as they went, and therefore choose to be anonymous, at least initially. Data Protection. The data collected during the interviews was and is protected –I transcribed all of the interviews and am the only person who has access to any of the data or the interview recordings. Permission was received from each of the participants to include the transcripts attached in the Appendix B of this report. Duality of roles. Multiple roles were present between myself and the interview participants, with each of the participants being my teacher and/or therapist and/or supervisor at some point in time. Normally the dual role considerations are important in qualitative research when the interviewer has the higher rank, as in the case of any therapeutic relationships where the study participants may be patients or clients. In this case I had less structural rank than the participants, so the impact was not so much an ethical one, but rather a limitation of the study. This is discussed in the Limitations section below. Intellectual property. Intellectual property (IP) is an ethical consideration in this study. The application of Worldwork to organisations is relatively new, and so practices are being developed at a rapid rate, and credit needs to be given to the creators of that work. This poses a dilemma –how to credit individuals for their IP, whilst also synthesising all their ideas into my own findings? By including much of the original data in the Findings, and including the interview transcripts in the Appendix, I hope I have been successful in my intention to credit individuals for their ideas. I believe I have attributed all quotes, whether they are What is pOD? 45 verbatim or paraphrased, to the particular participant. The process of working with the participants on the transcripts and giving them the opportunity to make changes to ensure I am representing them accurately, is also an attempt to take care of their intellectual property. Limitations There are a number of limitations to this study –the most significant is that there were only four participants in the study. Others include the way the participants were selected, the limited amount of time available to devote to this study and the age of the data used in this study. My lack of experience as a qualitative researcher and the complications of interviewing people more senior to me in terms of Process Work knowledge and expertise are further limitations. Number of participants. While having a small sample size is common in qualitative inquiry, having only four participants may still be seen as a limitation of this study. It is an issue because it means that it was rare for me to get the sense that there was a ‘ s a t ur a t i on’ofda t a( Pa t t on ,20 02)–meaning that I was coming across the same information repeatedly and could get a sense of the agreement or otherwise between the participants about a certain topic. While there was certainly saturation in some areas, t he r ewe r enume r oust i me swh e nIf e l tunc omf or t a bl ema k i nga‘ f i nd i ng ’ ,b e c a us ei twa s on l yb a s e dono nepe r s o n’ sa c c o unt . I am left with an image of a large circle, drawn in the sand, that represents existing knowledge about pOD in the areas covered by this thesis –the ideas behind pOD, where What is pOD? 46 is it used and how is it practiced. Handfuls of sand are placed in this circle to symbolise the amount of data relevant to that aspect of pOD. When I stand back from this circle, I see about three quarters of it has piles of sand on it –the other quarter is left uncovered. And of that three quarters, most of the piles are quite small, often coming only from the data of one participant. Every now and again there is a larger pile of sand, when concepts or ideas were mentioned by multiple participants. Number of case examples. Case examples were analysed to see if pOD phases exist when working with organisations. However, each participant gave only one case example, and only two of the case examples described completed projects. Therefore the validity of the results of the analysis are questionable. Participant selection method. As discussed in Sample Selection in the Methodology section of this thesis, my participant selection process was far from scientific –I asked 7 people to participate in this study, based on whether they identified with working with organisations or not, without defining what working with an organisation meant. If I was to repeat this study, with the knowledge of the topic that I have now, I would define what I mean by working with an organisation, and extend a general invitation to the worldwide Process Work faculty for people interested in being involved in this study. I would also plan the interviews far enough in advance to enable me to interview Arnold Mindell, the founder of Process Work. He was willing to be interviewed for this study, but was not available in the time I had left myself to get the interviews. Time limitations. Having limited time to devote to this study meant I was not able to present all the themes coming out of the data analysis, nor do more thorough member What is pOD? 47 checks by sending each of the participants the findings to see if they concurred with what I was suggesting. Age of data. The currency of the data is another limitation –the first interview was conducted with Mones in September 2006, more that 12 months before the findings of the study were written. pOD is going through such a rapid time of growth that some information was no longer ‘ c on t e mpor a r y ’ .Thi swa sa ddr e s s e di npa r tbys e nd i ngt h e participants the interview transcripts in September 2007, enabling obsolete sections to be removed. However, short of repeating the interviewing process, this could only remedy things to a certain point. My lack of experience as a qualitative researcher was largely responsible for this –I was not aware of how long it would take to complete this study. Another learning I have around this is that when researching any field that is in a rapid stage of growth, particular priority needs to be given to having time to analyse and write about the data as soon as it is gathered. Lack of researcher experience. As previously discussed, I have no prior experience with qualitative research. The main impact of this that I am aware of has already been considered –in gaining informed consent and in underestimating how much time would be needed to complete this work, hence making the findings less current. My experience as an interviewer, was also limited. This, and the multiple relationships with participants that I discuss below, at times made it difficult for me to probe for more e dgyi nf or ma t i ona n dt ob r i ngi n t e r v i e we e sba c k‘ o nt r a c k ’ .Tha tb e i ngs a i d, k no wi ng wha t‘ ont r a c k ’wa sonl ybe c omec l e a ra st hedata was analysed –during the interview What is pOD? 48 stage it was not possible to know what information would end up being relevant to the study. Multiple relationships. I am a student of Process Work and all the participants of this study are all Process Work faculty members. This means they are all more senior to me, and as previously noted, have been or are my teachers, therapists and/or supervisors. The experience of me being in the higher contextual rank position with them was unusual for me –I was the one facilitating the interaction, asking the questions and asking for clarification. I needed to work on myself to overcome my edges to be in that role, to decide when I had enough information and when I needed more. This was particularly an issue in the earlier interviews when I was less clear about what I was doing. What is pOD? 49 Chapter 4 FINDINGS –Ideas Behind pOD What is pOD? How is it defined? What are the ideas behind it? Are there theories and philosophies in the background, and if so, what are they? How are they used? Where and when are they used? Chapters 4, 5 and 6 begin the process of answering these and other questions by reporting the findings of the interviews, centred around the research question which guides this study: What is organisational development from a Process Work perspective? This chapter, which focuses on the ideas behind pOD, begins by defining pOD in a nutshell. It then describes some of the concepts on which pOD is built, and the tools resulting from these concepts. Chapter 5 gives an account of some applications of these ideas –the organisations where pOD has been practiced, and the types of problems and issues present in those organisations. Chapter 6 presents findings in relation to the practice of pOD. In all the Findings chapters I report the findings by conveying my interpretation of what pa r t i c i pa n t ss a i ddu r i ngt h ei n t e r v i e wsa sa c c ur a t e l ya sIc a n.If o l l o wChe na i l ’ s( 19 95) s ug g e s t i oni nhi sc ha p t e r“ Da t aAsSt a r ”ofpr e s e n t i ng“ a smuc hoft heda t ay ouc ol l e c t e d as is phy s i c a l l ypo s s i b l e ” .Hes ugg e s t st hi si si mpo r t a ntf o rt wor e a s on s–firstly, as discussed in the Soundness of Study section, to enable readers to judge the validity of the r e s ul t sf o rt he ms e l ve s .Ands e c on dl y ,t o“ s h a r et h ewe a l t h ”–to enable readers to “ s e e wha tt he yc a ns e e ” ,t he r e byi nvi t i ngt he mt oc on t i nu et h ee xpl or a t i ona n dc on ve r s a t i on (Chenail, 1994). What is pOD? 50 Defining pOD When participants were asked how they would define process-oriented OD, no one definition was given. For the most part, participants were still arriving at a definition, in some cases through talking about it in the interview. Some commonalities between their de f i ni t i onse xi s t ,o nebe i ngt h a tpODha st odowi t hunf o l d i nga nor g a ni s a t i on’ spr oc e s s , with most participants referring in some way to working with the primary and secondary process of the organisation. Another commonality was the link to Worldwork, the application of Process Work to groups (Diamond & Jones, 2004, p. 9), with two of the participants making this link more overtly than the others. One participant referred to interventions in their response to the question and another to the theories on which it is built. The isomorphic aspect between personal development and organisational development was also noted. pOD in a Nutshell After boiling down the various responses from the four participants to the definition of process-oriented organisational development, here is my attempt at a definition in a nu t s h e l l :“ pODi st hea p pl i c a t i o nofPr oc e s sWor ka n dmor es pe c i f i c a l l yWo rldwork, to the field of organisational development. It identifies and brings awareness to the process oft heor g a n i s a t i o na ndf a c i l i t a t e st heun f ol di ngoft ha tpr oc e s s ” . Sc hui t e vo e de ra ndDi a mo nd, r e s pe c t i ve l y ,de f i nep ODs i mpl ya s“ …f ol l o wi ngt h e processoft h eor g a ni s a t i on ,a ndh e l pi ngi tu nf ol di nt oi t sne xtp l a c e ”a nd“ …us i ng process-or i e nt e dme t h odst of ur t he rt h ede ve l o pme n tofa nor g a ni s a t i on. ” What is pOD? 51 Si mi l a r l y ,Mone ss p e a k sa bo utf a c i l i t a t i ngt heunf o l d i ngofa nor g a n i s a t i o n’ spr oc e s s . Without using Proc e s sWor kt e r mi no l ogys hes pe a k sa b outunf o l d i ngt h eor g a n i s a t i on ’ s secondary process in a way that paces their primary process: Iwo ul ds a yt ha ti t ’ st hepr oc e s so fwor k i ngwi t ha no r g a n i s a t i onwh e r ey oul oo k at their strengths and what they do well, and that you also look at the things that disturb them, and take them away from their intention. And based on their culture and what they are willing to go along with, you find ways to help them integrate the things that disturb them, so they can be a more resilient organisation. Di a mon dma ke st hel i n kt oWor l dwo r k ,de s c r i b i ngi ta sa“ f r a me wor kf o run de r s t a nd i ng t hede v e l opme nto fa nor g a ni s a t i on ”wi t h“ as e to fi nt e r v e nt i onsweus et ha ta r ede s i g ne d f orwor k i ngwi t ha nor g a ni s a t i o n” : The framework that we typically use is the Worldwork framework, where we look in terms of roles and ghost roles and we look in terms of the long term dynamics a ndp r e s s ur e sa n di n f l u e nc e st ha ta r epa r toft h eo r g a ni s a t i on ’ swho l e ne s s , a ndwe work to give back the sense of wholeness to the organisation, so they feel more empowered, so they have a deeper connection to their different parts. Including all stakeholders –clients, customers, shareholders. Schupbach first describes the relationship of Worldwork to Process Work, and the concept of collective development. He then goes on to state that pOD is Worldwork, for specific types of groups: What is pOD? 52 Process Work is the overall umbrella –that has the whole thing in it –but in return Worldwork also has the whole Process Work paradigm in it. And then Wor l dwor kde a l swi t ha r e a st h a t ,t obe g i nwi t h,l oo kl i k et he ya r e… f oc u s i ng especially on collective transformation. So if you think of things in terms of personal development, you think of the development of one person, one human being. Then there is collective development, which is anything larger than the hu ma nbe i ng .… Wha tIc a l lp r oc e s s -oriented organisational development, is Worldwork with for-profit and non-profit groups –either organised or networks – that are interested in becoming conscious about or working with who they are and where they want to go. Isomorphicness Thinking about the isomorphic aspects between organisational development and personal development gives a framework for those who are familiar with working in the area of personal development to apply to their thinking about work with organisations. MerriamWe bs t e rde f i ne si s omor phi ca s“ be i ngo fi de n t i c a lors i mi l a rf or m,s ha pe , ors t r u c t ur e ” (Merriam-Webster, 2007). Mones, Schupbach and Diamond all draw the parallel between working with an individual client and working with an organisation. Diamond and Schupbach r e s pe c t i v e l y ,a d dr e s st hi sd i r e c t l y :“ Th e r ea r eal otofpa r a l l e l st h a ta r eus e f ulb e t we e n individual therapy and organisation therapy, or organisation de ve l o pme n t , ”a nd“ It hi nk that whole idea of personal development and organisational development, as symmetric What is pOD? 53 a s p e c t s ,ori s omor p hi ca s pe c t si sr e a l l yhe l p f ul .I t ’ sc o nt a i ne di nou rp r o c e s s wor k understanding of non-l o c a l i t yi nps y c hol ogy ” . This leads nicely onto two questions. The first asks whether pOD is a new application of Process Work or a new field? The isomorphic aspect of organisational development to personal development implies there is nothing particularly new about organisational development, therefore suggesting it is a new application. The second asks what constitutes organisational development? When is working with an organisation pOD, and when is it something else? This parallels the question of what constitutes personal development? New Application, Not a New Field Diamond ponders the question about whether pOD is a new application of Process Work or a new field. She leans in the direction of seeing it as another application of Process Work, with the same set of process work skills transferable to pOD: I t ’ sa l s oun c e r t a i n,wh e t he ri ti sane wf i e l d,ori si tj us tan e wa ppl i c a t i on?If e e l like, for me, I know that Process Work has branched into new applications about once every five years. A major new application that starts to emerge –it deepens t het he or y ,bu ti tn e ve rc ha ng e si t .I t ’ sne v e rl i ke ,oh, ok a y ,pr o c e s s -oriented c omawo r ki st hi s ,a n di t ’ sc omp l e t e l yd i f f e r e n ta ndy oun e e dt ol e a r nane ws e to f t he o r i e sorane ws e tofs k i l l s .I t ’ st hes a met r a ns f e r a bl es e to fs k i l l s ,s oI ’ m g u i d e dbyt ha tt houg htwhe nI ’ mdoi ngt hi swor k .Whe nIt r yt ot hi nka boutwha t I ’ md oi ngwi t hor g a n i s a t i on s ,Ig oba c kt o ,ok a y , i t ’ sa na pp l i c a t i ona ndwha tdo e s What is pOD? 54 t ha tme a na n dhowi st ha ta na p pl i c a t i o n?Be c a us ei tj us tl ook sd i f f e r e n t …t h e landscape looks different. Maybe the landscape looks more different, and the l a nd s c a pema k e sust h i n kt ha ti t ’ samu c hmor edi f f e r e n tt hi ng , butId on’ tt h i nk i t ’ sa l lt ha tdi f f e r e nt .So,we ’ l ls e et h oug h. While this question was not specifically discussed with other participants, seeing pOD as another application of Process Work aligns with the definitions given by the others. To pOD or not to pOD? –The Development Process When is working with an organisation pOD, and when is it something else? For example ,i sMone s ’ sf o l l o wi nga c c o untpOD?“ …I ’ veg o nei nt h e r ef orawe e k e nd ,ora few days, or even one day, and kind of made a splash, gave a hand, did a group process a ndd i dab i tofr e l a t i o ns hi pwor k ,a ndt ha twa sk i ndo fi t . ” Mones, Diamond and Schuitevoe r d e ra l lpon de r e dt heq ue s t i onofwha ti sa n di s n ’ tpOD. All agreed that the key was whether there was any development occurring. As Mones put it: …i fy out a l ka bo utde ve l o pme n t , or g a n i s a t i on a ld e ve l op me nt ,i t ’ sni c et obea bl e to talk about what is deve l op i ng ,wha t ’ st hepr o c e s s ?Wh a ta r ey o us upp or t i ngt o unfold, and actually interact, you know, with that. She draws the parallel to working with an individual: I do a session with somebody that makes a big impact on them, but what does it really do? Wha td oe si tr e a l l ydoove rt i me ?Ma y bey ou’ vet ouc he ds ome t h i ngi n What is pOD? 55 s ome body .Id on’ tr e a l l yk now.Doe si tc ha ng eho wt he yde a lwi t hc on f l i c t ,d oe s it change how they orient themselves around relationships, how effective they can be in the world? I would doubt it. All three agreed that time is not a factor when considering this question. As Sc hui t e vo e r de rputi t :“ It h i n kc ha ng e sc a nh a ppe nr e a l l yq ui c k l y ,Id on’ tt hi n kt h e ya r e t i meb a s e d. ”Hes p okea b outt r a c k i ngc h a ng eo rde ve l op me ntt hr oug hc l i e ntfeedback and also through observing the organisation having gone over an edge –this is discussed later in this study, in pOD Practice. Diamond summarises her thoughts about the matter by saying: Organisational development is basically assessing and designing interventions t owa r dsapa r t i c ul a rg oa l .… Soi t ’ sno tt i me ,i t ’ swha ty o udo.I t ' st hede gr e et o which your work is imbedded in a larger goal that you are somehow a part of. One Paradigm in the Background –Worldwork As noted above, there is a strong link between pOD and Worldwork, a point that Sc hup ba c hr e p e a t e dl yma k e sonhi swe bs i t e .“ Theba s i sofourwor k ” ,hes a y s ,r e f e r r i ng t ohi swo r ka sa nor g a n i s a t i o na lc ons u l t a n t ,“ i sWor l dwor k ,t hes oc i o l og i c a lda ug ht e ro f Processwork, which is the overarching paradigm that the researchers Drs. Amy and Arny Mi nd e l lde ve l ope d”( Sc hupb a c h, 200 6b) . This realisation, obvious as it may seem to some, needs to be stated clearly. Worldwork is the main paradigm in the background of process-oriented organisational development. What is pOD? 56 The importance of having such a well developed and all-encompassing theory behind pOD can not be understated. It gives the practitioner a road map to follow in their work with organisations, and a set of tools to employ in the process. Schupbach makes this point in the interview, and we go on to discuss how important this is to both of us: MS: Worldwork is the overarching paradigm, that allows us to focus on long-term processes spanning the whole range of OD interventions, as well as to focus on a specific local issue, using the same perspective and interventions for both. One of the situations that I am working with involves a large international corporation, and includes teams and departments on all continents over the period of several years. Another situation focuses for example on a family issue of the local corner store. In both cases, the same paradigm and perspective can be used. And paradoxically, we cannot judge which of the processes will eventually have a larger impact on changing the world, because of sensitivity to initial conditions, also known as the butterfly effect. HH:Tha t ’ swond e r f ul ,ha vi ngt hes a mepa r a di g mi nt h eb a c kg r oun d.I ’ vewor k e d i ns omepl a c e swh e r et h a th a sb e e nmi s s i ng , whe r et he y ’ v epul l e dbi t sa ndpi e c e s f r oma l lov e r ,a n dt he r e ’ snot hi ngi nt heba c kg r o undh ol di ngi tt og e t he r . MS: Wow. So therefore, so you can never say this went wrong. HH:AndIc a nn e ve rs t a ndf u l l ybe h i ndi t , be c a us et he r e ’ ss ome t hi ngmi s s i ng . I t ’ sl i k ee mpt y . What is pOD? 57 I say Worldwork is the ‘ ma i n’pa r a d i g mi nt heb a c kg r o undo fp OD,be c a us ea st hi ss t u dy will show, pOD also includes working with individuals on their reactions, issues and edges away from the physical presence of a group, on their issues and edges. The question then arises of whether or not this is considered Worldwork. A definition of Worldwork is required to answer this question. As previously noted, Mi nd e l lde f i ne sWor l dwo r ka s“ as ma l la ndl a r g eg r o uppr o c e s s wor kme t hodt ha tus e s Deep Democracy to address the issues of group sa ndor g a ni s a t i o nsofa l lk i nd s ”onhi s we bs i t e( 200 6a ) .Di a mon de ta l . de f i neWor l d wor ka s“ pr oc e s s -oriented approach to g r ou pwor k ”( 20 04, p.9 ) .Bo t hde f i ni t i o nsr e f e rt oWor l d wor kbe i ngr e l a t e dt og r oups– so the question then becomes, does individual work constitute group work? In her handout on Levels of Interaction or Communication, Menken states five levels of group life exist –systemic, group/field level, subgroups, relationship level and individual level (2004, p.1). Goodbread (2004b) descr i be sho w“ p r o c e s s e sof t e nc h a ng el e v e l s ” : What starts out as a group process may trigger a relationship process between two participants. Similarly, a single individual may react strongly to a group process a ndma yne e df o c us . … Whe nt hef a c i l i t a t orc a nfocus on this individual, his or her experience makes the group process concrete for many other participants (p. 2). So individual work is part of group work, when it takes part in a group setting. What if the individual work is taking place in private? Does this constitute group work and therefore Worldwork? Or is this closer to another application of Process Work – therapeutic work with individuals? What is pOD? 58 None of the participants specifically mentioned the application of Process Work to therapeutic work with individuals when defining pOD, and two of them –Schupbach and Diamond –specifically make the link between pOD and Worldwork, as described in pOD in a Nutshell. However, Diamond also refers to pOD as an application of Process Work in the discussion on whether pOD is a new field or a new application, and in a private email, Mones says: I actually think it is PW theory [as applied to working with individuals] as much as Worldwork theory, in that so much work is the one on one interactions you have with people in different contexts. It is all about being aware of what is c l os e ra ndwha ti sf ur t he ra wa yf r omape r s on’ sa wa r e ne s sa ta nyg i v e nmome n t– and finding ways to help them broaden what they are aware of, in themselves and around them. Basic Process Work theory (personal communication, November 24, 2007). Whether working with individuals away from the physical presence of a group constitutes Worldwork or not is not clear from this study. However, for the purposes of this report, I include all individual work as part of Worldwork. As a result, this study focuses on Worldwork as the paradigm in the background of pOD. pOD Concepts The philosophies behind pOD are essentially Worldwork concepts. Worldwork theory forms the framework for process-oriented organisational development. As was stated in the Literature Review, there is much literature available about Worldwork, and the What is pOD? 59 intention of this study is not to repeat or summarise all of its underlying concepts. However, the aspects of Worldwork theory that were mentioned by participants during the interviews are presented here, along with a brief definition of each. These included the concept of an organisation as being an organism, with its own process structure, roles and ghost roles, the ideas of deep democracy and eldership, rank and power, and the holographic principle regarding levels of work. Organisations as Living Organisms Mi nd e l l( 20 02a )vi e wsor g a ni s a t i o nsa sbe i ng‘ l i vi ngs y s t e ms ’ , r a ther than just mechanical entities.“ Or g a ni s a t i onsa r epa rtially mechanical beings needing behaviour c ha ng e .Howe ve r… o r ga ni s a t i onsa r ea l s ol i vi ngor g a ni s mswh os el i f e bl oodi s c ompos e do ff e e l i ng s ,be l i e f s , a nddr e a ms ”( p .4) . Di a mon dma ke sr e f e r e n c et ot hi swhe ns h es a y s ,“ wea r ea l wa y sl ook i nga tg r ou psa s or g a ni s m,or g a ni s a t i onsa sor g a ni s m” .Mo ne sa l s ome n t i on st hi sdi f f e r e ntwa yof t hi nk i ng :“ …t ha t ’ st ot a l l yac ha ng ei nt h i n k i ng ,t oamor es y s t e mi ck i ndoft hi nk i ng ,f or pe o pl e ,r a t h e rt ha nj u s tt hi s ,‘ i fwep us hha r de n oug h…’ . ” Process Structure of Organisations Understanding the process structure of an organisation is central to many of the ideas and techniques participants spoke about during the interviews. Primary process, secondary process and edges. An organisation has a primary process, a secondary process and edges, just as an individual has. This means that the organisation What is pOD? 60 has aspects with which it identifies, which are more known (primary process), and aspects which it marginalises, which are less known (secondary process). The edge forms the boundary between the two, and often shows up as an inability to say something about the things which have been marginalised by the organisation. The primary process of the organisation is described by Diamond and Mones, r e s pe c t i v e l ya s“ ar o l et ha tne e dst ob es a t i s f i e d, i t ’ sg o tg o a l sa n da g e n da sa n dt h os eha v e t obes a t i s f i e d ”a nd“ t he i rs t r e ng t hsa n dwha tt h e ydowe l l ” .Mo ne sde s c r i be st h e s e c o nda r ypr oc e s sa s“ t het hi ng st ha tdi s t ur bt he m, a ndt a k et he ma wa yf r omt h e i r i nt e nt i on” .Sc h ui t e voe r de rr e f e r st ot hes e c o nda r yp r oc e s sa s“ wha ti swa n t i ngt oe vol ve a nde me r g ei nt h eor g a n i s a t i o n” . Field, roles and ghost roles. The concept of fields, roles and ghost roles are important in Worldwork, and mentioned a number of times throughout the interviews. A field is de s c r i b e da s“ t hea t mos phe r eorc l i ma t eo fa nyc ommu ni t y ,i nc l ud i ngi t sphy s i c a l , e nv i r o nme n t a la n de mot i ona ls ur r ou ndi ng s ”( Mi nde l l ,1 995 ,p. 42) . Roles form part of this field –t he ya r et he“ mome n t a r yp l a y e r s ”( Mi nd e l l ,200 2a ,p .17 9) such as the boss, the sub-ordinate, the outspoken person or the quiet person. In consensus r e a l i t y( t her e a l i t ymos tpe op l ea g r e ei s‘ r e a l ’ ) ,p e opl ea r ea s s i g ne dr ol e si no r g a ni s a t i on s , such as the boss or the sub-ordinate. Role theory suggest that in dreamland (the world of dreams, emotions, fantasies), we all have aspects of all roles within us –for example we all have aspects of a boss-like figure in us, although we may not identify with that role. Ghost roles are those roles which are present in the field, but no-one is identifying as being in that role. Schuitevoerder gives an example in organisations, where the role of What is pOD? 61 someone who is incompetent is a ghost role in an organisation where competency is va l u e d.Ano t h e re xa mp l ei st h er o l eo ft he‘ bo s s ’ , if he or she is being talked about but not present in the room. Ghost roles are linked to the secondary process of an or g a ni s a t i o n,a sd e s c r i be dbySc h ui t e voe r d e r :“ f r e q ue nt l y , t h i ng st ha ta r e n’ te xpr e s s e dg e t marginalised, and they get hidden and they ma ni f e s ti nt e r msofg hos t s ” . In Worldwork theory, roles and ghost roles are best expressed and filled out by many people. Often more than one person is needed to fully represent a role. And conversely, any individual is more than one role –no one role represents all of who we are. Role switching occurs naturally when different roles interact, meaning a person who is in one role might, after expressing something from that role, notice themselves move into another role. Schuitevoerder gives some examples about how role theory shows up in organisations. Fi r s t l y ,h owt her o l eo f‘ l e a de r ’i saf l ui don e ,a n dc a nmo vebe t we e nme mbe r sofa n organisation at different times: The model also ascribes leadership as a fluid process which is role based rather than individually based. And that frequently leaders and wisdom in the group does not necessarily come from the ostensible leader, but can easily come from someone, who might not appear to have so much overt rank in the organisation, or overt authority in the organisation. Secondly, he makes the point that roles will stay with the organisation, even if the i ndi vi d ua ll e a ve s .Thi smi g htb et r u eoft her ol eofa‘ t r o ubl e ma k e r ’ : What is pOD? 62 Eve ni fy oug e tr i doft h ei n di vi dua l ,y ou ’ v es t i l lg ott owor kt hr o ug ht ha tpr oc e s s with the organisation. Deep Democracy and Eldership Deep democracy is the philosophy and metaskill (feeling attitude) that everyone, all sides, and all states of consciousness are important and need space to express themselves and be heard (Mindell, 2006b). Schuitevoerder speaks about deep democracy as applied to organisations, and the value of this philosophy in organisations: I have the belief that the wisdom of change lies within the group itself, and it lies i nt h ea bi l i t y… o ft heg r o upt oe mbr a c et hed iversity of the voices, in the group as meaningful. So process-oriented facilitation, process-oriented OD would be the method of awakening organisation systems and groups within those organisation, towards a deeper recognition of the value of the differences within the organisation and begin to work with those differences in a way that actually enriches and enhances the organisation. Eldership is the place within us that is deeply democratic –that can hold and hear all the parts, all the levels, both in the world and within ourselves. Rank and Power The amount of power we have relative to each other in relationships, groups, community and the world is referred to as rank (Dworkin & Menken, 2006). This power or ability What is pOD? 63 can be personal or social, and arise from either external factors, such as the culture or c ommuni t ys upp or t ,orf r omi nt e r na lf a c t or s ,s uc ha sone ’ spe r s ona lps y c hol ogyor s pi r i t u a lp owe r .Ra nk“ or g a n i s e smu c hofourc ommuni c a t i onb e ha v i o ur ,e s p e c i a l l ya t e dg e sa ndi nho t s p ot s ”( Mi nde l l ,1 995, p. 42). Some rank is inherited and some rank is earned (Dworkin et al., 2006), and we are generally conscious of some and unconscious of other forms of rank (Mindell, 1995, p. 42). Schuitevoerder makes the theoretical point t ha t“ t hos ewhoh a vepowe rfrequently, are not as conscious of the ways they use it as t hos ewh oha vel e s spo we r ” .I not he rwor ds ,wet e n dt ob ea wa r eoft h ea r e a swh e r ewe have low rank and less aware of the areas where we have high rank (Dworkin et al,. 2006), and conversely, we tend to be aware of the areas where other people have high rank. Process Work normally differentiates between four types of rank –social, contextual, psychological and spiritual rank. The following description of each rank is loosely based on the work of Dworkin et al. (2006). Social rank refers to such things as age, gender, physical abilities, education, sexual orientation, race and class. People tend to take this social rank for granted, and have little awareness of it. Contextual rank relates to the group you are currently in. In an organisation, the higher you are in the organisational hierarchy, the higher your rank. Contextual rank changes as we move between groups – we are seen or valued differently, and so will generally be aware of it. Psychological rank comes from how well we know ourselves, and how well we can stay close to ourselves when things get difficult. It is acquired through life experiences such as how we were treated as a child, surviving traumas, working through abuses and the love and support we get from friends, family and community. Spiritual rank comes from What is pOD? 64 having a connection to something bigger than ourselves or having clarity about what our l i f e ’ spu r pose is (Dworkin et al., 2006). Holographic Principle and Levels of Work Worldwork draws on the holographic viewpoint in its theories –the concept of a hologram is borrowed from physics, suggesting that each part of a whole carries the same pa t t e r nsa st heor i g i na lwhol e( Mi nde l l , 198 8) .So“ a nyg r o upwi l lmi r r o rt hes a mek i nds ofpr oc e s s e st h a ta nyl i t t l eb i toft heg r ou pwi l lh a ve ”( Goo dbr e a d,2 004a ) ,whe t h e rt hi s ‘ l i t t l eb i t ’beas ub -group, a relationship or an individual. “ Thei de aofWo r l d wor kc a mef r omt hei de at ha tgr ou pswor kl i k ei n di vi dua l s ” ,a nds o the methods used for working with groups can be based on the methods used to work with individuals and relationships (Goodbread, 2004a). This is aligned with point discussed earlier about the parallels between personal development and organisational development. The holographic principle has a number of applications, including the concept that work at any level of a group (including organisations) will impact the whole group. This is exciting in that it suggests working with an individual to help them develop, will develop the organisation. So for example, an individual in an organisation learning to c ommuni c a t emor edi r e c t l ywi l li ns omewa yi mpa c tt heor g a n i s a t i o n’ sc ommu ni c a t i o n culture. Making a change at any of the following levels will impact the whole organisation: 1. Systemic –making changes to policies, statutes, laws What is pOD? 65 2. Group –ag r oupwor k i ngoni t ’ si s s ue s ,c on f l i c t s 3. Sub-group –a group within a group working on themselves 4. Relationship –two people working on their relationship 5. Personal –an individual getting insights or making changes in themselves –their behaviours, beliefs etc. (Differentiation of levels based loosely on the theory described by Menken, 2006). Similarly, the process structure at any of these levels can be used to gain an insight into the proces ss t r uc t u r eofa nor g a n i s a t i on .Sof ore xa mpl e ,a ni n di vi du a l ’ se dg e si na n or g a ni s a t i o nwi l lpoi ntt oa nor g a n i s a t i o n’ se dg e s .Orac onf l i c tbe t we e ni nd i v i d ua l sc a n reflect a dynamic present in the larger organisation. Both of these applications of the ho l og r a ph i cp r i n c i pl ea r ep a r to fDi a mon d’ sc a s ee xa mpl e ,wh i c hi si nc l ude di nt h e section on pOD in Practice and are good examples of pOD Tools, which will be discussed shortly. Myths The concept of myths and organisational myths are mentioned by all of the participants. Or g a n i s a t i on a lmy t h ,a c c or di ngt oSc hup ba c h ,i s“ t hei n di vi du a la n dt i me l e s sc h a r a c t e ro f a nor g a ni s a t i on, whi c hi si t sbi g g e s tpo t e n t i a la nds o ur c eofpowe r ”( Sc hu pba c h,2 006 c ) . I nhi sc l a s so n“ My t h ,Vi s i on, St r a t e gy ”( 2 006 )hes a i d“ or g a ni s a t i on a lmy t hi sa hyperspace, meaning it is an un-nameable thing that organises a group, that will appear in a sma nyf o r msa st he r ea r epa r t i c i pa n t smi nd s e t sl oo k i ngi nt oi t ” . What is pOD? 66 Participants in this study emphasised different aspects of myths. Diamond referred to “ my t h i ci s s ue s ”a s“ me a ni ngl ongt e r m,c hr o ni c ”a ndg oe sont os a y“ wel oo ka tt hemy t h and the deeper symbols, and the persistent ghost roles or allies of the organisation, and he l pi tc onn e c twi t hi t smy t h” .Sc h ui t e voe r d e rs p e a k sa b outt heor g a n i s a t i on’ smy t ha s of t e nbe i ng“ c on ne c t e dt ot hepr i ma r yi de n t i t yoft heor g a n i s a t i o n” . Sc hup ba c hd e s c r i be sa nor g a ni s a t i on’ smy t ha n ds pe a k sa b outt hepowe rofwor k i ngwi t h it. MS: ... How do I define myself? I define myself as a facilitator whose task it is to help the group or the person connect to their myth. Their myth is not something l i k e ,‘ t ha t ’ smymy t h, a ndn owIk n owmymy t h’ .Butt h emy t hha samove me nt t oi t , as t o r yl i ne .I tha sas e nt i e ntc ha r a c t e r i s t i c ,wh i c hme a ns , i t ’ sa l s oa part i c ul a rg r oo ve , i t ’ se xp e r i e n c e da sf l ow.I tc a nbee xp e r i e nc e da s“ t hez one ” , whi c hwek n owf r oms p or t s .Th a t ’ sa l s ot hemy t h .Andi fs o me onef i nd st ha t , e ve r y t hi ngwi l lg obe t t e r ,orf l owmor ee a s i l y .The y ’ l lwor kbe t t e r ,t he y ’ l l flourish better, they ’ l ls l e e pbe t t e r ,t h e y ’ l lde ve l opn e wr e l a t i ons hi pswi t ht he i r c ompe t i t o r s ,a ndt he y ’ l lha veane wvi e wont hema r ke t .Gr ou pst h a ta r ea b l et o connect with that do as a whole much better. They have done much better financially and in terms of a general fe e l i nga b outwha tt h e ya r edoi ng .Andi t ’ s all connected. You know that from yourself. If you are in the groove, it happens. HH: So all the things that you say you do –large and small group process, coaching etc –s ome whe r ei nt h eba c k g r oun dt he r e ’ smy th work? What is pOD? 67 MS: Yes, that it is a big part of it. … I see my task is to help them find the key purpose, and then notice it, and then celebrate it and then use it. pOD Tools pOD tools are specific and tangible methods and techniques that pOD practitioners can use that are based on Worldwork concepts. The concepts of rank theory, deep democracy, levels of work and that an organisation has a structure, can all be directly applied when working in an organisation. Many tools exist in Process Work –here I present the tools discussed by the participants, including how to elucidate an or g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s ss t r uc t u r e ,t a k i ngas t r uc t u r a lvi e wp oi nto ni s s ue sa ndu nf ol di ng techniques. In many instances, having an awareness of Worldwork concepts is in itself a powerful t ool .Sc hui t e vo e r de rde s c r i b e se l e me nt sofhi s‘ t oo l k i t ’whe nwor k i ngi no r g a n i s a t i on s : The toolkit, that I use, in terms of process work, that I find really important is: One, awareness of rank. Two, awareness of roles and ghost roles –frequently, t hi ng st ha ta r e n’ te xp r e s s e dg e tma r g i na l i s e d ,a ndt h e yg e thi dde na ndt he y manifest in terms of ghosts. The third one, that is super important, is edges. And edges are constellated around issues, but there are also personal edges. What ’ st hePr oc e s s ? Understanding that an organisation has a process structure, with a primary and secondary process, edges, roles and ghost roles is central to process-oriented organisational What is pOD? 68 development, as described by participants in this study. It provides the structural map or framework within which many of the tools and interventions mentioned by the participants are used. Participants describe a number of methods that can be used to map t hes t r uc t ur eofa nor g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s s . Using client understanding of issue as diagnostic. Th ef i r s to ft he s eu s e st h ec l i e n t ’ s un de r s t a nd i ngoft h ei s s uea si n di c a t i v eoft heo r ga n i s a t i on ’ sp r o c e s s .Di a mon de xp l a i n s : The client comes, the client has a presenting issue, the client understanding of the issue itself is diagnostic –i nt hes e ns et ha ti t ’ sno ts omuc had e s c r i pt i onofwha t is, but a description of the edges and the structures and the roles and ghost roles of the client organisation or individual. Client as reflection of organisation. In the same direction, but subtly different, is seeing the person who is speaking about the organisation –and their problems, edges and relationship with the organisation –as a reflection of the organisation itself. This is an application of the holographic principle discussed earlier. Both Mones and Diamond mention this, and here Diamond describes what she tracks in her early meetings with her client to gather this information: So yes, you come in, you have an initial conversation. One of the things I do, and how I think, is that I a s kmy s e l f ,who’ sb r i ng i ngmei na ndwha t ’ st he i r relationship with the organisation? And what are the edges they have and what are the problems they have? How is that related to the organisation? How are the issues that they are having or the problems that they have, exactly what the organisation has? What is pOD? 69 Consultant as missing role in organisation. Diamond explains how she looks out for the roles and ghost roles in the organisation by seeing herself as a missing or needed role in the organisation. She stresses the importance of doing this as one of her strategies as a consultant: Wha ta r et hed i f f e r e n tr ol e s ?Wh o’ sha ppyI ’ mi n,who’ sup s e tt ha tI ’ mi n?Thi s person is having trouble with some part of the organisation, and who am I meant to solve, by my presence? So I think about it that way –t h a t ’ sp a r tofmyi ni t i a l entry into an organisation –to think about myself as part of what the person is attempting to do. And that for me is a big piece of my strategy. Consultant being dreamt up by organisation. Mones highlights the importance of un de r s t a nd i ngt h eor g a n i s a t i o n’ sp r oc e s ss t r uc t ur ei non e swo r kwi t ha nor g a ni s a t i on.I t g i ve st hec r u c i a lov e r vi e wofwh a t ’ sg oi ngoni nt heor g a ni s a t i ona ndg ui de st he consultant in their work. Here she discusses t hepr o bl e mofo ne ’ spe r s o na lps y c h ol og yo r g e t t i ng‘ dr e a mtup ’a sg e t t i ngi nt hewa yofbe i nga bl et os e et hepr o c e s ss t r uc t ur e : I think one of my biggest learnings was about not taking things personally. When I was taking things personally, I felt like Ir e a l l ydi dn ’ tk n owwha tt od o,b e c a us e I felt really rejected, and was just swimming around in my own stuff. Therefore I c ou l dn’ ts e et h eb i gg e rs t r uc t ur eofwha twa sg oi ngo n,a n dc ou l d n’ tu s emy reactions for the sake of the client. I was positively hypnotised. Looking at the bigger structure, it was easier to know what to do. Be i ng‘ dr e a mtup ’i s“ t hee xp e r i e nc ewhe nat he r a pi s t[ orODp r a c t i t i on e r ]u nwi t t i ng l y be g i nst oa c tl i k ea na s pe c to ft hec l i e nt ’ spr oc e s st ha ti sn oty e td i r e c t l yr e p r e s e nt e d” What is pOD? 70 (Mindell, 2002b, p. 130). This points to another diagnostic –when the OD practitioner no t i c e st he ya r eb e i ngdr e a mtup ,t he yc a nl o okt os e eho wt heor g a ni s a t i on’ spr oc e s si s found in themselves. Interviews to sense the field. Another method for gaining an understanding of an or g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s si sbyc o nduc t i ngi n t e r vi e wswi t hor g a ni s a t i o nme mbe r st o‘ s e ns e t hef i e l d ’ .Th r e eoft hepa r t i c i pa nt sme nt i one dt hi sme t ho d.Mo ne se xp l a i n st hep r oc e s s she followed when conducting interviews with one of the organisations she has worked with: I did all these one-on-one interviews, and small group interviews and just tried to sense the field, and talk to many people, basically about the same things around how relationships work, how things get done, how peopl ed e a lwi t hc on f l i c t .… Whe ni tg e t sbo r i ngt h a t ’ sg oodb e c a u s ey ouun de r s t a ndt h es t r uc t u r et hr o ug ht he r e du nda nc e .… I t ’ sa ni n di c a t i ont ha ty ou ’ vebe e na bl et of i g ur eo utwha tt he process was about. Structural Viewpoint on Issues The issues and problems participants have worked with in organisations are presented later in this study, in Applications of pOD, where they are categorised according to their c on t e nt .pODa l s ol o ok sa ti s s ue sf r omt h ep oi ntofvi e wo ft heor g a ni s a t i on’ ss t r uc t ur e . Schuitevoerder and Mones both spoke about taking a structural viewpoint on an or g a ni s a t i o n’ spr ob l e ms ,s ug g e s t i ngr e s p e c t i v e l y ,t ha ti s s ue sa r e“ c o ns t e l l a t e da r oun d pr i ma r ya n ds e c on da r ypr o c e s s e s ”a n d“ t het h i ngt ha ti sma r g i na l i s e db e c ome s What is pOD? 71 problematic in whateve rwa y ,wh e t h e rt h a t ’ st hepo we ro rwha t e ve r . ”Di s t ur ba n c e sa nd conflicts, from this point of view, come in order to awaken the primary process of the organisation about aspects that it has no awareness of. Marginalised aspects becoming problematic. Schuitevoerder gives an example of how something that is marginalised causes the organisation to get stuck around that place and have problems: I fy oul ooka tma nyor g a n i s a t i o ns… i ft he r e ’ sal a c kofr e c og ni t i o noft h a twh i c h wants to emerge in the organisation, the organisation gets stuck. For example, many, many cultures, in the United States at least, and probably everywhere in the world, believe that in order for people to stay in organisations they have to be hi g h l yc ompe t e n t .Sot he r e ’ sahug ea mou nto f pressure of competence in many or g a ni s a t i o ns .Ther e s ul ti st ha twhe ny o udon’ tf e e lc ompe t e nti na na r e a ,y ou are unable to express that in the organisation, which means all that sense of incompetence goes underground, and the whole organisation, instead of being a learning organisation, where people grow and develop and learn new things, has to be a competency based organisation. Sot h eo r g a ni s a t i on st he ng e ts t u c ki nc ompe t e n c y ,a ndwhe npe op l ed on’ tkno w, t he yd on’ ta dmi ti t .Andt he n ,t y pi c a l l ywhe ny oudo n’ tk nowa nda r es t uc ki n having to know, there is only one way out, and that is to leave at some point in time –or to hide your mistakes. Then you get huge attrition in organisations. On the front they are highly competent, but in the background, all of the places that What is pOD? 72 t he ya r ef a i l i ngorwe a ka r e n ’ ta dd r e s s e d.Be c a us eoft hei n a bi l i t yt ode a lwi t h anything but competency. So you can see an organisation actually thrives and develops, through beginning to unfold that, which is not accepted within the primary culture of the organisation. In that situation, competency, is primary. That which is not a c c e pt e dwou l db ep l a c e swedon ’ tk n ow,wea r ee xp l o r i n g ,wea r eun c e r t a i n about, and yet those are the very things that are exciting about organisations, in terms of their growth. Disturber as awakener. The role of the disturber in waking up the primary identity is outlined by Schuitevoerder: The essence of the idea of the disturber in Process Work is that the disturber comes in order to awaken us to information that we are not yet present to. And i t ’ sdi s t ur bi n gt ha t ,whi c hne e dst obedi s t ur be d ,whi c hi sf r e que n t l yt hepr i ma r y identity of the organisation. The disturbers come as an awakener of the primary identity, and encourages an emerging secondary process within an organisation. Personal edges leading to organisational edges. Both Schuitevoerder and Mones suggest personal edges also lead to organisational edges. Mones adds that most problems get constructed around relationship edges: You know, it always seems to come down to difficult relationships between people, regardless of the context. The problems get constructed around relationship edges. Perhaps people have a hard time being direct with each other What is pOD? 73 –it comes out in all sorts of compli c a t e di nt r i c a t ewa y s .It h i n kt ha t ’ sa l wa y st r ue –t ha ta l lt hei s s ue sg e tc on s t r u c t e da r ou ndpe o pl e ’ se dg e sa n dt he nbe c ome organisational edges. Unfolding the Process Participants discussed a number of tools to unfol da nor g a ni s a t i on’ spr oc e s s . Framing from the viewpoint of the primary process. The first is framing things from the viewpoint of the primary process. Mones gives the example of a company who identifies with being cutting edge but whose market position is slipping to being number two. They identify as being innovators: Sof r a mi ng ,f ori ns t a nc e ,t hei de aofde e pde mo c r a c y , ore ve r y body ’ sv oi c ebe i ng included, as the most innovative thing you can do, is the direction that you need to g owi t h,t he m.I ’ mg oi ngt os a yi tal i t t l es i mp l y–I wou l dd oi tl i k et h i s :“ The numbers are showing that people are nipping at your heels, and to be really innovative, you need to draw on the wisdom of everybody in this group. So me t i me st h a t ’ sno ts u c ha ne a s yt hi ngt od o,c o sp e op l ea r eapa i ni nt hea s s , youdon ’ twa ntt oh e a rf r ompe op l e . ”I t ’ ss ome howmod e l l i ngf o rt he m,t ha tby listening to all the different voices –this is just an example –they will be able to c a p t u r es ome t hi ngi nn ova t i vet ha tt he ywe r e n ’ ta bl et og e tt ob e f or e .Orma y be di dn ’ tne e dto even get to before, when they were just number one. Using the primary process to really motivate them around secondary stuff. What is pOD? 74 Process pointing to the intervention. Letting the process point to the intervention is another tool available to pOD consultants. Diamond explains: Depending on how they talk about the problem, I might need to see him or her work with the team. It sounds like they keep talking about relationship things, and difficulties they are having, so it may be that I need them to bring in the whole team, or it maybe that I can just do this one to one and then help them with their edges. Consultant going over organisational edges. Going over the edge for an organisation is yet another pOD tool. Here Mones speaks about going over the edge in an organisation where no-one was being direct and makes the point that it is easy to get dreamed up, or caught up in the culture of an organisation: SoIt he nc r o s s e dt hee dg e ,a n dIr e a l i s e dIwa s n’ tbe i ngdi r e c t ,Iwa sbe i ngl i k ea real schmuck, you know, so when I could be direct and say what needed to be s a i d, myc l i e n twa ss or tofa bl et ome e tmemo r e .Sowhe nIwe n tov e rmy… c os you get caught in the culture of the field. Dreamt up. If you take yourself out of the way, which sometimes is real l yha r dt od o,a n dy oud on’ tt a kei tpe r s o na l l y , you can be more effective. You can use your reactions as diagnostic. Representing ghost roles and addressing edge figures. Representing the ghost role in a group is another method used to unfold the organi s a t i on ’ sp r o c e s s .Di a monde xp l a i n s : Yout hi nkt hep e r s ont a l ki ng ,y out h i n kt he s ea r er ol e s ,a n dt h e r e ’ sap r i ma r y pr o c e s s ,ar ol et ha tne e d st obes a t i s f i e d,i t ’ sg otgoa l sa nda g e nda sa ndt hos eha ve What is pOD? 75 t obes a t i s f i e d .Andy o ul o oka twha t ’ st r ou bl i ngi t , wha t ’ st h es e c onda r ypr oc e s s , what are the roles that are ghost roles and how can we help facilitate a better connection between those roles? Schuitevoerder gives examples about addressing edge figures and bringing in ghosts. He suggests that you need to address edge figures first, to make it safe to bring in the ghosts: Frequently, the whole organisational scene constellates around primary and s e c o nda r yi de nt i t i e s , a ndt ha t ’ swhypi c k i ngupt hedi s t ur be r si nawa y ,i sr e a l l y helpful, because it presses the group to edges. But the first step frequently is to be able to bring out the ghost roles. And those things that are felt but not said within the organisation. And check whether those things are safe to come out. If they are not safe to come out, then you have to address the safety issues first. Otherwise, after a day in the organisation, a whole lot of people are fired, which y oudon ’ twa nt .Fr e que nt l y ,a sIa ppr oa c ha nor g a ni s a t i ona ls y s t e m, t h ef i r s t things I have to determine is, what are the various edge figures, that will stop people from actually coming out and expressing what ghosts are present? And often I will, as the facilitator, talk to those edge figures. I ask whether the setting for bringing in the edge figures is a group process, which he affirms, and goes on to give an example: I nag r ou ppr oc e s s ,a bs o l ut e l yI ’ ds a y ,b e c a us eIha v er a nka saf a c i l i t a t or ,a ndI ha v et oh ol dt heg r ou p.Soi ft h e r e ’ sawh ol el o to ft e ns i oni nt heg r o up,a ndI know from talking to individuals that the r e ’ sa ne dg et obed i r e c t , butt h e ya r e afraid because of an edge figure that says they are going to get fired if they talk What is pOD? 76 di r e c t l y ,t he nIwou l dt a l kt ot ha t .AndI ’ ds a y ,“ y o uk no w,oneoft her e a s onsI i ma g i nef ol k swon’ tt a l k ,i sbe c a us ey o umi g htg et fired if you do talk. Is that c or r e c t ? ”Yous e e ,be c a us et ha twon’ tg e ty ouf i r e d.Thene xtlevel, with what you say, will get you fired. So that discussion needs to be had, before you can go to the next level. He goes on to give an example of bringing in a ghost: Sof r e q ue n t l yI ’ l lbe g i nt oa ddr e s st hos ec o nc e r n s .Whe t he rt h ec onc e r ns ,byt h e wa y , a r eoft h eme mbe r si nt h eg r oupormy s e l f .I ’ v eha dg r o upst ha tha v es a i d , “ he y ,y ou’ r ei nt h epr e s i de n t ’ spo c k e t ,t he ya r epa y i ngy ou ,Id on’ tt r u s ty ou. ” AndI ’ vea c t u a l l ys t oo dupi nf r ontofag r oupof100pe o pl e ,a n ds a i d,“ Ihe a r d t hi sg os s i p” , a ndt he nope n e di tou ta sag h os t .Andt he na n s we r e dt heg h os t .I ’ ve s a i dt ot h eg r oup ,“ Ihe a rt ha tf ol k s ,s omef ol k smi g htf e e lt ha tI ’ mn otf u l l y trustworthy, because I have a friendship with the president. I want to tell you t ha t ’ st r u e .Ia l s owa n tt ol e ty o uk no w,t ha tmyj obhe r e , i st os up por tt h e facilitation and the development of the whole community. And, please check me out around that. If I do n’ ts u ppo r tt hedi ve r s i t yoft her ol e si nt heg r oup ,a ndI do n’ te n c ou r a g et ha tt oha ppe n,I ’ mnog o odf ory o u.Pl e a s el e tmek no w,Iwa nt t og r owa ndd e ve l opi ft ha t ’ st hec a s e ,a n di fIc a n’ ts upp or ty ou, pl e a s ef i r eme . ” And that was the end of the issue. What is pOD? 77 Chapter 5 FINDINGS –Applications of pOD Where and when is pOD applied? This chapter looks at the organisations where participants have practiced pOD, and the types of problems and issues they were working with. Organisations Where pOD is Practiced The four participants have worked as practitioners of pOD in a wide range of organisations, including governmental, non-governmental, for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. The table below summarises these organisations. Whilst this is not a comprehensive list of all the organisations the participants have worked in, it gives an overview of those mentioned during the interview. Type of Organisation Intentional communities Mones Schupbach x x Non profit organisations x NGOs x Labour unions Hos p i t a l sa ndh e a l t hCa r eor g ’ s Diamond Schuitevoerder x x x x x What is pOD? 78 Type of Organisation Mones Schupbach Diamond Schuitevoerder Government organisation x x Educational institutions x x x x x x x x x Small businesses Fortune 500 Fortune 50 x x The table shows all participants have worked with a Fortune 500 company and most pa r t i c i pa n t sha vewor k e dwi t hNGO’ s ,e du c a t i ona li ns t i t u t i on s( s c h ool s , c ol l e g e sa nd universities) and small businesses. The table does not show the number of times each participant mentioned individual types of organisations, therefore it does not give any indication about where pOD is practiced most often. Nor does it indicate whether there was a change over time in the type of organisations the participants engaged with. Neither of these questions were directly addressed in the interviews, however Mones indicated that the types of organisations she has worked with is changing. She said she has worked with: … awi der a ng eofor g a ni s a t i on s–it has changed a lot over time. I started working with intentional communities, schools, healthcare and government organisations, and currently am working with a couple of Fortune 500 companies. What is pOD? 79 Organisational Problems and Issues Communication issues, issues around power and rank and conflict were the most common examples of problems participants named when talking about the kinds of problems they work with in organisations. Other problems included dealing with diversity issues, work/life balance, changing organisational vision and issues related to the organisational structure. These issues can be viewed from a structural viewpoint, as discussed in pOD tools, or categorised by content. Here I categorise them by content, into three categories – personal, interpersonal and organisational. These categories align with the three levels in an organisation, which are a synthesis of the five levels that have been described by Me nke na s“ l e v e l so ff oc usonag r ou p”( 200 6)–personal, interpersonal, sub-group, group and organisation –and the three aspects of an organisation described by Mindell (2002a): Sometimes aspects of an organisation can be understood in terms of groupings. There are always at least three such groupings under the umbrella: (a) the entire organisation, (b) interpersonal relationships among members, and (c) the psychology of individual members. All levels need focus for the organisation to work well (p. 78). Organisational Levels I define the three levels of an organisation as follows: What is pOD? 80 Personal –This is the level of inner experiences, reflections (Menken, 2004) and issues related to the individual. Interpersonal –This is the level of interactions between people, and can occur either between two people (relationship level), a sub-group or a group. Organisational –This is the level of the entire organisation. It includes group process and systemic change, “ t hel e ve lofho wabu s i n e s soror g a n i s a t i on operates, social action issues and changes that needs to happen, laws, policies, ‘ t hewa yy o udobu s i n e s s ’ ”( Me nk e n, 200 4) . Interpersonal issues made up a large proportion of the organisational problems mentioned by the four participants. Issues in the other two categories were less common. Personal Issues The only personal issue discussed during the interviews was related to work-life balance. Schuitevoerder identifies it as“ ah ug ei s s uei nor g a ni s a t i ons ” . Interpersonal Issues Many of the issues and problems cited by participants can be described as interpersonal issues –these include communication issues (and in particular being direct), difficulties in collaborating, rank problems, sub-group marginalisation, diversity issues and dealing with conflict. Schuitevoerder reflects this finding –he identifies that most of problems he is called in to help with tend to be interpersonal: What is pOD? 81 Mo s t l yi ts e e mst ha tI ’ mpul l e di nwhe nt he r e ’ se i t he r , i n di vi dua l , r e l a t i on s hi p, team or systems challenges, and mostly they are of an inter-personal nature. So whe ni t ’ ss e e nt ha twha ti sr e qu i r e di saf oc usona ni n t e r personal or communication level. Issues that could loosely be called communication issues were mentioned by all of the participants. Diamond, in talking about leadership teams, speaks about the fear they seem to have when relating to each other as peers. Each leader has their own team –for example an IT team or an Operations team –and come together to form the leadership team: Leadership teams each have their own silos, and are used to being leaders of their teams. When they get with other vice-p r e s i d e nt sorl e a de r s ,t h e ybe c ome… almost afraid. They have a fear of speaking out and they seem afraid to interact. And there seems to be a fear around disagreeing –people basically go along with things. The ydon ’ tk n owh owt od i s a g r e e . Earlier she makes the link between not being able to speak out and with their difficulties in collaborating, another issue in organisations. Mones mentions the difficulty in being direct, in reference to a Fortune 500 company she is consulting to: They say one thing and do another, they are not accountable –because they have a hard time being direct. What is pOD? 82 Schuitevoerder speaks about how people have difficulties being direct with people in a higher rank position, and how this is related to rank unconsciousness on the part of the managers: One of the frequent edges I come across is people being able to communicate di r e c t l yt ot h e i rma n a g e r s .Tha t ’ sj us to neoft h ee dg e st ha t ’ sr e a l l yve r y c ommon. … Ma nype o pl ewhog oi nt oma na g e me ntp os i t i o nsof t e ndon ’ ti de n t i f y with their power or with the ability to communicate effectively that power. He identifies rank problems as a typical issue in organisations: One of the things that typically comes up in organisation, is rank problems. And i tc o me swhe nt he r e ’ save r ys t r ong ,f r e qu e nt l ya ut ho r i t a r i a ns t y l e ,o ras t y l et ha t do e s n’ tl i k ee xpr e s s i ono fpe opl et ha tare direct reports to the manager. So, sometimes unconsciousness of relative power that is held within the organisation becomes problematic. Diamond spoke about the difficulties people have engaging with those with different hierarchal rank: Staff and mana g e r sh a vec on f l i c t… pe opl eha vet r o ubl ema na g i ngup wa r ds . The ydo n’ tk nowho wt oe ng a g ea n di n t e r a c ta ndma na g ebo s s e s ,a n dbos s e sd on’ t know how to empower people. Mones also identified rank and power as common issues in organisations: What is pOD? 83 All organisations grapple with how to deal with power. It is an issue around community living –where there is no sort of designated leader. Also in corporations with a matrix structure, where hierarchy is marginalised. Hierarchy r e a l l yi s n ’ tpo pul a rt oda ye ve ni nt hemost mainstream of organisations. People act as if there is no real boss –and thus all the power is marginalised. I think the essence of that really, is power, people are so edged out. They are afraid to congruently step in or out of their power. When power or rank does surface it is usually in ways that make it difficult for everyone to deal with—less tractable. Schuitevoerder identified a sub-g r o upi s s uehe ’ swor k e dwi t hi nhi swor kwi t h organisations, when one group feels marginalised: One group in t h eor g a n i s a t i onf e e l sma r g i n a l i s e d,wh e t h e ri t ’ sbe c a u s et he yha v e lower rank –they have this role which is less recognised, and they feel underappreciated, because they come from a marginalised group –or because they might have a different nationality. Hea l s ode s c r i be st het y pe sofd i v e r s i t yi s s u e sh e ’ se nc o unt e r e d : There are frequently diversity issues, not necessarily only around race. Sexual or i e nt a t i on ,ofc ou r s eg e nd e r ,a sIj us tme nt i on e d.You ’ l lg e ti s s ue sof homophobia –I ’ vewor ke dwi t hor ganisations around homophobia. Dealing with conflict, whatever its source, is another issue participants discussed. In Mo ne s ’ sc a s ee xa mpl ei nc l ude dl a t e ri nt h i ss t udy ,s h es pe a k sa bou tho wpe opl es hy away from conflict, rather than using it as a way to grow. Here Schuitevoerder describes What is pOD? 84 how conflict is frequently marginalised in organisations, and how the organisation knows i tha si s s u e s ,bu tdo e s n’ tk no wh owt oa c c e s st h e m: Frequently in organisations, conflict is underground. So when I go into an org a ni s a t i o n,o f t e nt h e r e ’ sat e n s i o n,t h e r e ’ ss y mpt oms .Fore xa mp l e ,y o uge tt h i s huge attrition in organisations, or you get tensions or problems or gossip in the office. Those are some of the symptoms that are indicative of troubles. Or you get unhappiness, people not showing up for meetings, that kind of representation. I t ’ st hek i ndoft hi ngwhe r et h eor g a n i s a t i o nk nowsi t ’ si nt r oub l e ,bu ti tdo e s n’ t k n owhowt oa c c e s si t .An dt ha t ’ sf r e q ue nt l ywhe nIg e tc a l l e di n. Organisational Issues A number of issues at an organisational level were identified by participants, including issues related to the way the organisation was structured, the different functions in an organisation and a number of problems related to making strategic changes in an organisation. Sc hui t e vo e r de rs pe a k sa bou twha thec a l l sa‘ c l a s s i cODi s s ue ’ ,r e l a t e dt oa n or g a ni s a t i o n’ ss t r u c t ur e : So me t i me sI ’ l lg oi n ,t hee xe c ut i vei so ve r whe l me d.I ’ l la s kt he mwhyt he ya r e ov e r whe l me d,a ndt he y ’ l ls a yt he ya r en ots u r e .The nIf i n dt h a t they have t hi r t e e norf our t e e nd i r e c tr e po r t s .Is a y ,“ We l l ,Iun de r s t a nd ,y o uror g a n i s a t i o na l c ha r tne e dsc ha ng i ng ” .I not he rwor ds , i t ’ sonas y s t e mi cl e ve lt h a tt hec h a ng e needs to occur. What is pOD? 85 He gives another example of an organisational issue, of the tension caused when an organisation that has two different functions: For example if you look at many educational institutions, they have two functions, they have an administrative function and they have a programs or educational function, and those two often have a huge amount of tension. So if you have an or g a ni s a t i o nwhi c hdo e s n’ tha veac o mbi ni ngbo dyofs ome onewhoi sa bl et o hold the diversity of both of those, it becomes problematic. Schupbach gives the example of working with internal resistance caused by strategic changes in an organisation. He was invited in to work with a European organisation that needed to change their marketing strategies to cope with the changes in European Union policies. The strategic changes to the organisation caused interpersonal issues: Youc a ns a yt ha t ’ saf a c i l i t a t i o n,c o a c hi ngt h i ng .Andi t ’ sq ui t ec o mpl e x, be c a us e as you know, any group of this size, has a lot of internal political things. You convince one guy –you have a good discussion with one guy –one guy buys into your model. Now the moment Mr So-and-So has bought in, Mrs So-and-So won ’ tbuyi na ny mor e . Schuitevoerder also identified issues related to organisations making strategic changes. He described what happened when an organisation tried to change its‘ my t h’–which Schuitevoerder uses here in the context of vision and strategy of the organisation: Wha th a pp e nsi st he yc r e a t eamy t h,a n dt h eor g a ni s a t i o ni ss up por t e da n di t ’ s unfolded according to that myth. Then the organisation begins to change and the What is pOD? 86 myth still is the background figure that is followed. And the question is then how to change that, how to change the vision and strategy of the organisation? Then tensions occur when that myth begins to change. That frequently occurs in founding organisation, when there is an original founder of an organisation. Issues arising from mergers were also mentioned. Schupbach gave the example of NGOs who are merging to become more competitive, and the status battles that happen as a result: The smaller NGOi st r y i ngt oho okupwi t ht h ebi gg e rNGOs .The r e ’ sa n unspoken rule in OD that says, the lower the financial stake, the more vicious the status battle in the background. Presenting Issues Af t e ro ut l i ni ngt h et y pe sofpr ob l e mss h e ’ swor k e donwi t hor g a nisations, Diamond makes the point that all these issues are the presenting issues. Consultants initially get invited in to organisations to help with these issues –these then lead to other areas of focus: The s ea r et hepr e s e n t i ngi s s u e s .Idon’ twa ntt oma keadi a g n os t i c… Id on’ twa nt to make too much of a big deal out of it, do you know what I mean? This is why Process Workers work with an organisation. These are like presenting issues that pe o pl es t r ugg l ewi t h ,i td oe s n’ tme a nt os a yi t ’ st hes u mt otal of what we do in organisations, they are like issues that bring people to therapy, so to speak. What is pOD? 87 Chapter 6 FINDINGS –pOD in Practice How is pOD done? How are the Worldwork theories and pOD tools applied to organisations? How does one consult to an organisation? Is there a process that is followed –from the moment contact is made until the work is complete? This chapter presents findings in relation to the practice of pOD. It commences with a discussion about whether pOD steps exist, and goes on to address the questions posed above by looking at four case examples described by the participants. The major elements in each case are summarised, and categorised to see if there is any alignment wi t ht he“ g e ne r a lmode lo fp l a n ne dc ha ng e ”pr opos e dbyWa ddell et al. (2004). pOD phases are proposed, and these phases are described. One of these phases includes the implementation of interventions –as interventions form such a large part of the practice of pOD, the chapter concludes with a section that is devoted to these interventions. Steps –Do they Exist? I nor de rt og e tas e ns eofho wp ODi s‘ d one ’ , ort h epr a c t i c eofpOD,Ia s ke dp a r t i c i p a nt s t hequ e s t i o n,“ Wha ta r et hes t e psofpr oc e s s -oriented OD? What does it look like from the moment contact is made between you and the organisation and when you leave the pr o j e c t ? ”Thewa yIf o r mul a t e dt hi si nt e r v i e wque s t i ons ug g e s t st h a tIa s s umet ha ts t e ps of pOD exist –a fact that both Schupbach and Diamond brought to my attention. What is pOD? 88 Schupbach does so by asking me about the paradigm in the background behind my questions. The following discussion took place after I list the questions I will be asking him during the interview: MS: Let me ask you something. Do you mind? Why these questions? What's the rational behind the questions? HH: I came up with a whole list of questions, things I'd like to find out about, and had to narrow it down to something I thought would take an hour, for the interview. MS: I understand, but why, I mean in addition to the things you say? If I would ma k eas t udyoni nt i ma t er e l a t i on s hi ps ,myf i r s tque s t i onwou l db e ,“ wh a ti sy ou r first experience when you relate to someone, thinking about an intimate r e l a t i o ns hi p ? ”Be h i n dt h a two ul ds t i l lb et h ep a r a di g m, t ha tf i r s tmome nt sc ou nt , and t h a t ’ swha tIa mr e s e a r c hi ng .Doy ouk nowwha tIme a n? It was only after the interview that I understood what Schupbach was referring too, and so my response –“ Tha ts e e me dl i k eaf a i r l yl i ne a rs o r tofaque s t i ona n da l s oma y bea n easier one to get people warmed up into the i nt e r vi e w”–misses his point. Di a mon dma ke st hepo i ntt ha tt he r ea r eno‘ s t e ps ’i nPr oc e s sWor k .He r eDi a mo nda ndI discuss this: HH: The next question goes into the specific details again. What are the steps of process-oriented OD? What does it look like from the moment contact is made be t we e ny oua n dt h eor ga n i s a t i ona ndwhe ny oul e a v et hepr oj e c t ?I ’ mt h i nk i ng , What is pOD? 89 a sas ugg e s t i o nhe r e , t h a ty out hi nko fon epa r t i c ul a ro r g a n i s a t i ony ou’ vewo r ke d with, and we work from the beginning to the end with that one, as a possible way of doing that. JD: I just want to say as an interview meta-c omme nt ,t he r er e a l l yi sno… l i k e wi t ha ni n di vi dua l ,y ouc a n’ ts a ye ve r yc l i e ntc ome si na ndh e r e ’ showi tgo e s . Tha t ’ sn othowwet a l ka b outPr oc e s sWor k ,s owewoul dn ’ tt a l ka bo ut organisation development work that way either. And organisation development itself depends on what the basic problem is. If we do talk about one case, which I t hi nki sab e t t e rwa yt odoi t ,i t ’ si mpo r t a ntt ha ti t ’ sno tf ormulated as though this i sh owi t ’ sdon ei ne ve r ys i t u a t i o n.Ar ey ouwi t hmet h e r e ? HH:Tot a l l y .AndIt h i nkt hel e ve l sa r ei mp or t a nthe r e .I ’ ms ur et he r e ’ ss t i l la beginning phase, a middle phase and an end phase, which are going to be similar. At a high enough level, there is making the initial contact, getting some understanding around what the identified problem is, coming up with i nt e r ve n t i o ns .The r e ’ l lbes o me t hi ngl i k et h a ta tave r yh i g hl e ve l ,It h i nk ? J D:Be y ondwha ty o uj us ts a i d ,Id on’ tt hink so. Case Examples Abbreviated versions of the case examples provided by each of the participants follow. For the full versions, please see the transcripts of the interviews in Appendix B. I have a dual purpose in including the case examples –to enable readers to track the analysis I What is pOD? 90 c a r r you ta n dt o‘ t e l lt hes t or y ’ofs omeo ft hep ODwor kt ha t ’ sbe e np e r f or me d .Th e intent is to begin to give readers a sense of the practice of pOD –how contact is made, what happens during the first meeting, etc., and the sort of things the participants are thinking and feeling during this process. Examples of the pOD tools discussed earlier are also revealed in these case examples. I then summarise the key elements in each of the cases, and being mindful of Diamond’ s s t a t e me nta bo utn ots ug g e s t i ng“ t h i si showi t ’ sdonei ne ve r ys i t ua t i on” ,l ookf or recurring patterns in the case examples. My aim is to explore and identify discernible characteristics of the practice of pOD, and see if they bear any relationship to the main activities or phases of organisational development described by Waddell et al. (2004). Mone s ’ sCas eExamp l e–Fortune 500 Company Mo ne s ’ si nt r odu c t i o nt oh e rc l i e nt , t h eh e a do fHRf o raFor t une50 0c omp a ny ,c a mevi a an ex-client, who was on the c o mpa ny ’ se xe c u t i v et e a m: Ba s i c a l l yhej u s ts a i d ,“ y o uk no wIha v eac oa c hwh oha sa l wa y sdo newi t hmei n bu s i n e s s ,wh a ty o udi dwi t hmep e r s ona l l y .Whyd on’ ty ou… y ou’ dbeg r e a t . ” Soh ei n t r o duc e dmet ot heg uywhowa she a dofHR, whohe ’ db e e nwor ki ng with for many years. The primary team he was working with was having a lot of relationship issues. During the first meeting Mones established rapport with her client and then gave a short i nt r odu c t or ypr e s e n t a t i o n,i nwhi c hs hes p okea b out“ apr oc e s s -oriented viewpoint of c on f l i c ta ndt hev a l ueofdi s t u r ba nc e s ” : What is pOD? 91 The nIg a veav e r ys hor tpr e s e n t a t i ona b outho wIwor kwi t hp r o bl e ms… my viewpoint about problems, as an opportunity for learning. And conflict –how most people tend to sort of move away from conflict, because they are scared of i t .Ore xp l odea n dma kemor et r oub l e .Th a tmo s tpe opl edo n’ tk nowhowt ous e i t , a sawa yt oe vol vea n dg r ow.AndIi nt r odu c e dt hei de at ha ty our e a l l yc a n’ t keep out trouble. That people try to keep it out and it ends up coming back in a mor edi s t ur bi ngwa y ….I t ’ sahug epa r a d i g ms h i f tf ormos tp e op l ea n di tc a nb e communicated very simply. He asked her to come back for a longer meeting the following week, where they continued talking: So I went back the next week, and I was all excited and freaked out, and prepared a no t he rpr e s e n t a t i on… butweba s i c a l l yj u s tc o nt i nue do urc ha t .Pr e t t yc a s u a l a c t ua l l y .… Hewa sk i ndo ff r e a k e dou twi t hh i sn e wp os i t i o n,t het e ns i o nson his team –being in the USA, which is the headquarters, and his new responsibilities. Then followed a period of constantly changing plans about how to proceed: The nt hi swhol epr oc e s sb e g a nwh e r e ,f oray e a rnow,ofl e t ’ sd ot h i s , l e t ’ sdo t ha t ,l e t ’ sdot hi s .Iwo ul dpr e pa r ema j o rpr e s e nt a t i onsa nd be ready to travel a c r o s st hewor l d… t he nt he ywo ul df a l lt hr oug h.Cha ng eofpl a ns… c ha ng eof or g a ni s a t i o na ls t r u c t ur e… c h a ng eo fl e a d e r s hi p. What is pOD? 92 Some of the constant changes were due to resistance, the need to build relationships and t hec l i e nt ’ sp e r s ona l edges: Thema nwhoi st h ebos soft hi st e a m,i sn oti n t ot hi swor k… he ’ ss c a r e d.So e ve r y t hi ngi sa bou tpo l i t i c k i ng .I t ’ sc r uc i a lhowy o uf r a met h i ng s .Ce nt r a l .So [my] client has really had to make relationships with a lot of people, and get really comfortable with [me]. At one point, he was trying to make one more plan. I s a i d, “ Ic a n’ tma k eonemo r ep l a nwi t hy o u.Thebo t t omke e psf a l l i ngo ut c on s t a nt l y ,l i k e , wha tt h eh e l l ? ”Fi na l l yhewa sa bl et os a y ,“ Ir e a l l yd on’ tk no w how to talk about itwi t hot he rpe o pl e ” .Soi twa sg r e a tt ob ea bl et og oba c ki n t o that, and help him. You know, you really have to work with the person who you are facing, because they will reflect the edges of the organisation. He would get really excited in the moment, butt he nhec o ul dn ’ tr e a l l yt u r na r oun da nd formulate it and talk about it with people. I think after that happened things started moving. In my own excitement and a mb i t i onIdi dn’ tr e a l l yr e a l i s ea l lo fh i se dg e s .Onep a r tofhi mwa sr e a l l y wanting to dot hi s ,b uta not h e rp a r twa sr e a l l ys c a r e d.Hedi d n’ tk nowhewa s s c a r e d ,hed i d n’ tk nowt ha thedi dn ’ tk nowh owt ot a l ka b outi t .So,y ouc a no nl y l ooka t‘ wha tha p pe ns ’–wha tpe o pl e ’ sf e e td o.Heke e p sd r opp i ngt h eba l l– ok a y ,b uthe ’ snotdr op pi ngus , butheke e psdr op pi ngt heba l l .Sowh a t ’ sg oi ng on ?Tobea bl et ober e a l l ydi r e c ti na ne nvi r onme ntwh e r epe o pl ea r e n’ t ,i s t oug h.I nmyl a s tc onve r s a t i o n,It houg htt h a t ’ st hee n d,h e ’ sg oi ngt obedone with me, cos I was sooo pushy. But it was fine. What is pOD? 93 Finally the decision was made to interview everyone on the leadership team and one tier below them. Mones had a standard set of questions about relationships, conflicts and how things get done that she asked each of the 30 or so people she interviewed. After conducting the interviews, she synthesised the information and wrote a report outlining what was working well and what the challenges were. These findings and some basic l e a r ni ngp oi nt sa bou t“ c onf l i c ta n dt e a msa ndc o l l a b or a t i o n”we r epul l e dtogether into a Po we r poi n tpr e s e nt a t i o n,wh i c hMone s ’ sc l i e ntpr e s e nt e dt ot h el e a de r s hi pt e a m: He presented some of the findings to the leadership team. As kind of a taste as to what would come when we met with them next time they got together. He was a bridge of sorts. A package was put together suggesting a programme that would address the findings, including facilitation, coaching, on-line learning and a learning lab: Somyh i g hdr e a ma b outwhe r et ha tg oe si st h a ti t ’ sas l owc ul t ur ec ha ng eove r time, in terms of how people relate to each other. How teams work together. We have offered them a package: facilitated meetings (so that we would be there to facilitate) on-line learning, coaching and a learning lab. Sc hupbac h’ sCas eExamp l e–Combination of Organisations Whi l s tSc h upb a c hdi dn’ tpr e s e ntac ompl e t ec a s ee xa mpl edur i ngt hei nt e r v i e w, hes pok e about various aspects of his pOD work, which are collated here. He spoke about the two ways he enters an organisation –he differentiates change management projects from What is pOD? 94 consulting, and speaks about how the first contact occurs for both of these. In change management projects, he gets short-listed and is asked to send in a proposal: One classical scenario in change management for an independent consultant, who is competing with a group of other consultants, is to be shortlisted. She might get at e l e pho nec a l lf r oms ome onet ha ts a y s ,“ we ’ veh e a r dy o udot hi sa ndt hi s ,we ’ ve looked at various groups and you are short-listed. You ended up on our shortlist of 5 different people or groups. Are you interested in that? If so, would you send usapr op os a l ? ” Thi sc ompa r e st ot hemor e“ s t a n da r dc on s ul t i nga pp r o a c h”wh e r et h ei n vi t a t i oni st o c he c kf or‘ f i t ’ ,wi t has pe c i f i cc o ns u l t i ngpr o bl e mi nmi n d: For consultingus u a l l y ,y ouha v eas p e c i f i cp r obl e m.The y ’ l ls a ys ome t h i n gl i k e , “ wedo n’ tk nowy e ti ft he r e ’ saf i t ,wo ul dy ouc omeove rf o ramor n i nga nds a ya l i t t l ebi ta b outwha ty oudoa ndwhoy oua r e ,s owec a ns e ei fy o ua r eaf i t ? ” In this scenario Schupbach will often work on the problem with the organisation, to test if there is a fit, instead of discussing the fit. He explains that this can avoid the set-up of debating an issue with an internal evaluator of the group who wants to hire the consultant: So t he y ’ l ls a y ,“ wou l dy ouc o mea ndt a l kwi t huss owec a ns e ewh oy oua r ea n d s e ei fy ouf i t , i fwewa ntt ou s ey oua sac on s ul t a ntf orap a r t i c u l a rpr o bl e m? ” AndIpr e f e rnowt os a y :“ be t t e rwoul dbet ha tIc omeove ra n dwor kwi t hy ouon t hepr ob l e m. ”I t ’ sl i k ei fs o me onewo ul ds a yt ome ,“ I ’ ml ook i ngf orat he r a pi s t , What is pOD? 95 how about meeting for a coffee to feel each other out, to see if we like each other, i fwea r eaf i t . ”Ido n’ tt hi nki t ’ sa su s e f ula ss a y i ng“ whyd on’ tIg i v ey oua session and we can see ho wt ha twor k sou tf ory ou” .SoIpr e f e rt ha tt oonl y going and explaining what Process Work is and all of that. If you have someone who is asking for a proposal, you have an evaluator. This process is important for the organisation, as evaluation serves to help the group to understand itself better, become more aware of who they are. Finding out who you fit with is like finding out who you are. Working together on an issue will bring that process up also, but with a framework of making it more conscious. So ma y beag oo dwa yt owor kwi t ht hi swo ul dbet os a y“ l e t ’ swo r koni t .Br i ng y ourwo r s tpr o bl e m,we ’ l lwo r koni tf ora nho ur .Andi fy ou’ r eno tha ppywi t hi t a f t e r wa r ds ,y oud on’ twa ntmet obeapa r tofi ta ny how. ” In the case of the organisation mentioned previously where Schupbach was invited in to help them with internal resistance they were experiencing to a strategy change, the first step was one of facilitation and coaching: The first phase –I ’ may e a ra n dah a l fi nt ot hewho l ep r o c e s sno w–is to convince those guys that the reason they are meeting with internal resistance, is because they are approaching the whole thing with an incomplete mindset. You can say t ha t ’ saf a c i l i t a t i o n,c o a c h i ngt h i ng .Apr o c e s smi g htl o okl i k er e s i s t a n c et oone si de , a sl o nga st he ydo n’ tu nde r s t a n dt h edi ve r s i t yi s s u ebe hi n di t .Wha tl ook s like resistance to the one with more rank, looks like liberation to the one with less rank. What is pOD? 96 Having succeeded with that, the next step was a combination of interventions, including large group process, small group process, coaching, peer coaching, a newsletter and a bulletin board: About a month ago we got the buy-in from everyone –g r e a t ,we ’ r eg oi ngt og o f ori t .Nowwe ’ r ede v e l opi ngt hi swhol et hi ng–it has large group process in it, it has small group process in it and it has coaching and peer coaching things in it. It has a newsletter in it. It has a bulletin board with the whole feedback system. Schupbach goes on to explain the bulletin board concept, a large group process method over time: The basic idea is –how do you create a group process, over a year and a half with 14 00pe o pl e ,t ha twor ki ndi f f e r e nta r e a sa l lo ve rGe r ma ny ?… On epa r ti sg oi ng to be an online thing, people write if they have different opinions –wedo n’ tl i k e t hi s ,wel i k et h i s , wedon’ tl i k et h i s , wewa ntadi f f e r e n ts a l a r y , t h i sd oe s n’ twor k , t heun i o npe op l e[ …r e c or d i ngi na ud i b l e ] .Th e nwec l u s t e rt ho s ea sr o l e s .So , wi t ho t h e rwo r ds ,t ha t ’ saqui t eabi gope r a t i on ,wi t hl o t soff a c e t st oi t . Di a mond’ sCas eExa mp l e–Small Company Diamond chose a small company she had worked with as her case example: There was a small company and I worked with a conflict in the leadership team. The conflict reflected problems they had in the structure of their company, so I helped them make a link between the conflict and then changes in the What is pOD? 97 or g a ni s a t i o ni t s e l f .I twa sas ma l lpr oc e s s ,as ma l lp r o j e c t .… I tt ooka l lofa couple of weeks from start to finish. She was invited to do the work by the director of the company, with whom she met a number of times to discuss the issue: I met with that person several times, and discussed the issue. Then, after hearing the issue and discussing it with him in detail, I proposed a method for how to work with it, based on what he told me about the company, the people involved, and everything. She sent her client a written proposal about how to work with the issue –conflict facilitation at two levels –personal and organisational. Her client agreed to the proposal: I proposed that we sit together with the management staff and that we look at the conflict that emerged. It was one particular conflict that came up, a pretty heavy conflict that came up between two people in the management team –and we actually try to mediate or facilitate that conflict. But also, we did two other things with that. We looked at the conditions that led to that conflict, and how they were part of a problem in the organisation itself, that the individuals were in a way on a collision course based on a lack of clarity i nt h eor g a n i s a t i on ,a n ds ot h e i rc o nf l i c twa s n’ tj us tp e r s ona l .Wel o ok e da t different ways we could solve that, organisationally. Through certain types of training and also through certain organisational changes, like structural changes in What is pOD? 98 the organisation. So, I proposed that to him, and sent it as a proposal, and he said yes. Diamond met with the management team and started by working with the conflict at an interpersonal level, with the two people in the conflict. She describes how this process needed to be quick: J D:…br i e f l ya ndr a p i d l y–i twa s n’ tl i k eal ongdr a wnoutr e l a t i o ns hi pc o nf l i c t .I t wa ss hor t ,a ndf a c t ua l .The r e ’ sno tal oto ft ol e r a nc e ,y ouk n owy ouc a n’ tr e a l l y s pe ndal o to ft i meg oi ngd e e pi nt ope o pl e ’ se mot i o ns , f e e l i ng sa ndi s s ue s .I t ’ s very counter-productive in a team, in a business. HH:Howl ongwa si t ,whe ny ous a y‘ v e r ys hor t ’ ? JD: Well we talked about the conflict, and finishing up the actual conflict between t hepe o pl e ,Ido n’ tk n ow,t o okl i k ebetween 20, 30, 40 minutes. She then shifted her focus to working on the conflict at an organisational level with the whole team, on the conditions that led to the conflict and possible solutions: It then more rapidly went into a discussion about the whole team, and what the conflict meant for the whole team. And how it was a reflection of certain larger organisational dynamics, and how we could resolve that and what people thought about that. Diamond wrote up a second proposal, recommending training for the team and organisational structural changes, which were subsequently implemented: What is pOD? 99 Weme twi t ht het e a m, a nd… f ol l o we dupwi t ht h et r a i ni nga s pe c ta sI r e c omme nd e d.… Andt he nt h e r ewa saf ol l owupo nor g a n i s a t i on a ls t r uc t u r e s– t ha twa same e t i ng… and a written report and a couple of individual sessions with the director. Sc hui t e v o e r de r ’ sCas eExa mpl e–Non-profit Educational Organisation Schuitevoerder chose a non-p r o f i t“ e duc a t i ona l l yba s e dor g a n i s a t i o n”t ha te mpl oy sa b out 150 people for his case example. Hes pe a k sbr i e f l ya b outho whewa si nv i t e di nt ot heor g a ni s a t i o nt o“ doar e s i de n t i a l r e t r e a twi t ha l lt hes t a f fme mbe r s ” : My initial contact was through someone in the organisation who had seen me t e a c h ,a ndt he yt h oug htI ’ db ef a nt a s t i ca tf a c i l itating this meeting, and therefore invited me to come into the meeting. During the first meeting with the organisation Schuitevoerder got clarity about the format of the meeting and who would be present: It h e nwa nt e dt ok n owan umbe rofk e yme mbe r swho ’ dbe at that meeting, at all l e ve l soft h eor g a n i s a t i o n.… Th i swa sg o i ngt obeal a r g eg r oupme e t i ngof about 100 people for about 3 or 4 hours for a number of days. So I want to know exactly what was present, so I came totally prepared. What is pOD? 100 He conducted int e r v i e wswi t ha bou t15p e op l et os e ewha t“ wa spr e s e n ti nt hes y s t e m” a ndt o“ c ul t i va t er e l a t i ons h i ps ” .Sc hui t e vo e r de rdi dno tus eas pe c i f i cs e tofque s t i on s during this process: Myt e n de nc y ,whe nIi nt e r vi e w, i sno tt oa s ks p e c i f i cqu e s t i o ns .I ’ ml o ok i ng for what are the background tensions, conflicts and processes, that I think are going to be present when I go and facilitate. I want to know about the organisation. Pa r toft hi sp r oc e s si sc he c k i ngf or‘ f i t ’ ,“ t os e ewhe t he rmy s e l fa n dt heor g a n i s a t i on can wor kwe l lt og e t he r ” . Schuitevoerder then cultivated a sense of preparedness, which helped him to hold the group: In the first case, I want to know what are the issues. And so I can anticipate the types of tensions and conflict that are in the room by virtue of the issues. Then, if If i ndt h a tt he r e ’ sapa r t i c ul a rc ha l l e ng et h a tI ’ ms t uc kwi t h,I ’ l lg oi n t ot her ol e s a r ou ndi t .An dIf i ndo utwh a tg hos tr ol e sIc a na nt i c i p a t e .…Bu ton c eIa m prepared, I drop the whole lot. I go in empty. You can’ tg oi nwi t hapr e t e nc e , be c a us et ha tmi g htnotbet hec a s eofwha te me r g e s .AndIha vef ou nd,I ’ ve pr e p a r e da ndt h e not he rt hi ng sc omeu p,b utIf e e ll i k eI ’ v eg ots omuc h knowledge about the group already, that the group feels me holding it by virtue of my awareness of it. The group process followed, which Schuitevoerder describes: What is pOD? 101 Weh a danumbe ro fh otmome nt s .Oneoft hee dg e swhi c hc a meu pi son eI ’ v e mentioned earlier, where the executive director at that time, had been quite authoritarian, and people were afraid to speak out. The executive director, by the way, was absent from that meeting. The president was there, and some of his di r e c tr e por t swe r et h e r e ,b utt hee xe c u t i ved i r e c t orwa s n ’ tt he r e .Andh e ’ d chosen not to be there. And that was fine with me. We used his role as a ghost. And someone else picked up his role at different times, and the meeting was remarkable. One person, who had been asked to leave the organisation, stood up and confronted this role. [In this organisation people stay on for a set time after they have been asked to leave.] The role was taken by a direct report who had been involved in the firing, and a profoundly deep and touching discussion occurred. With the actual manager apologising –it was quite remarkable –and r e c og ni s i ngwhe r et he y ’ dma deami s t a k e .I twa sq ui t er e ma r ka bl e .An dt h e whole organisation changed from that. Af t e rt hi sf i r s tc on t a c twi t ht h eo r g a ni s a t i on ,Sc hui t e vo e r de r ’ sr ol ewa se xpa n de dt o include coaching and facilitating meetings (small and large groups): After that, I was pulled into meetings with the president –the president liked what I was doing –so I began to work directly with the president. I began to work directly with the executive director, and went to a number of team meetings, small meetings, 4, 6, 10 people, and worked ongoing with the organisation, both on a coaching and a team level. And then I was also asked to come back for a number of meetings with the larger group of people –not quite 100 or 150, but maybe 40 or 50 people. What is pOD? 102 Summary of Case Examples To organise the ideas around the practice of pOD, and to see if phases might be discernible when working with organisations, I summarise the key elements of each case example. I then look to see whether each element can be categorised into one of the four activities or phases of organisational development proposed by Waddell et al. (2004) in t he i r“ g e n e r a lmo de lofpl a nne dc ha ng e ” ,a sd e s c r i be di nt heLi t e r a t ur eRe vi e w. The codes used for each of the four activities are: E&C –entering and contracting; D –diagnosing; P&I –planning and implementing change; and E&I –evaluating and institutionalising change. Case Example Elements Code Mo ne s ’ sCase Example –Fortune 500 Company 1. Introduction to business E&C 2. Meeting –short introductory presentation - about change process, E&C conflict/problems, rank 3. Meeting –follow up conversation E&C What is pOD? 103 Case Example Elements Code 4. Constant change of plans re how to proceed. E&C 5. Interviews to sense the field D 6. Report –synthesis of interview findings D 7. Presentation of findings and some basic learning points D 8. Proposal –interventions package to address findings P&I Sc h upb ac h ’ sCase Example–Combination of Organisations 1. Entry into organisation via change management projects –short- E&C listed, asked to send in a proposal 2. Entry into organisation via standard consulting approach –invited to E&C check for 'fit' with specific consulting problem in mind 3. Works on the problem for an hour or so, for free E&C 4. Interventions –facilitation and coaching P&I 5. Interventions –interventions package including large and small group P&I process, coaching and bulletin board. Di amon d’ sCa s eExample –Small Company 1. Invitation E&C What is pOD? 104 Case Example Elements Code 2. Several meetings E&C/D 3. Proposal 1 –recommended strategy –working with conflict at two E&C levels: personal and organisational 4. Client's agreement E&C 5. Intervention –conflict facilitation at interpersonal level –working P&I with two people 6. Intervention –conflict facilitation at organisational level –working P&I/D with team on conditions that led to it and possible solutions 7. Proposal 2 –recommendations re changes –training and structural E&C changes 8. Intervention: training for team P&I 9. Organisational structural changes intervention –meeting, sessions, P&I written report Schuitevoerder ’ sCa s eExample –Non-profit Educational Organisation 1. Invitation E&C 2. First meeting E&C What is pOD? 105 Case Example Elements Code 3. Interviews, to sense the field and cultivate relationships D 4. Checks for fit between organisation and self E&C 5. Strategy –as specified by organisation –large group process P&I 6. Cultivate sense of preparedness D/P&I 7. Intervention –group process facilitation P&I 8. Interventions –coaching and facilitating meetings (small and large P&I groups) Case Example/OD Process Comparison The table above shows that the case examples essentially follow the first three phases of t he‘ ODPr oc e s s ’pr o pos e dbyWa d de l le ta l .( 2 004 )–entering and contracting, diagnosing and planning and implementing change. While the activities above generally occur in sequence, there is considerable overlap and feedback between them, as suggested is the case by Waddell et al. (2004, p. 37). The overlap between the activities can be seen in a number of the elements presented in the table above –for example Di a mon d’ sc a s eelement 6. As in that example, diagnosis is often occurring in parallel with the other activities, and it could be argued it is present in all activities. The feedback What is pOD? 106 between the activities, or the iterative nature of this process is most clearly shown in Di a mon d’ sc a s ee xa mp l e , where she essentially goes through the complete process twice. Evaluating and institutionalising was the only activity not present in the case examples. This is partly because only two of the case examples describe completed projects –this limitation of the study is discussed in the Limitations section. Based on the relatively strong alignment between the case example elements and the OD Process, I propose that iterative steps or phases of work exist when working with organisations, which I call pOD Phases, and give an overview of these phases. pOD Phases While the case examples suggest that the practice of pOD is largely comprised of three of the activities named by Waddell (2004), there was also some reference to the fourth activity, evaluation and institutionalising, during other parts of the interviews. As a result I propose that the pOD Phases r e f l e c tt h e“ g e ne r a lmod e lo fp l a nne dc ha ng e ”de s c r i b e d by Waddell et al. (2004), in which the following four activities are discernible: 1. entering and contracting; 2. diagnosing; 3. planning and implementing change; and 4. evaluating and institutionalising change. What is pOD? 107 In the next section I give an overview of each of these four phases, noting the multi-step, iterative nature of each. While most of the information about each phase is drawn from the case examples, information and corresponding data exemplars from other parts of the interview are included where relevant. Each overview is compared with the activities described by Waddell et al. (2004). Entering and Contracting Invitations to work for organisations came via a number of different channels –Mone s ’ s contact came via an ex-c l i e nt ,Sc hu i t e v oe r de r ’ sc ont a c tha ds e e nh i mt e a c h,a n d Schupbach spoke about being short-listed for change management programs by organisations that had heard about his work. Examples of the types of problems the participants have worked with in organisations are covered in the section on Problems and Issue. The problems or opportunities focused on i nt h ec a s ee xa mpl e swe r ev a r i e d.I nMo ne s ’ scase example, her client needed support – “ Hewa sk i ndoff r e a k e doutwi t hh i sne wpo s i t i on ,t het e ns i on so nhi st e a m” .Sc h upba c h spoke about being asked to help an organisation with internal resistance they were experiencing to a strategy change. Diamond worked with a conflict in a leadership team, while Schuitevoerder was asked to facilitate a meeting of about 100 people. In all case examples, the first step was to meet with the client. During this first meeting, Mones gave a short presentation on the “ pr oc e s s -oriented viewpoint of conflict and the va l u eo fd i s t ur b a nc e s ” .Di a mondd i s c us s e dt hei s s uei nde t a i l ,whi l eSc h ui t e voe r de rg ot clarity about the format of the meeting and who would be present. Schupbach generally What is pOD? 108 do e s n’ te xpl a i nwha tPr oc e s sWork is and will work on the problem with the client for f r e e ,i ft he ya r ei nt e r e s t e di nc he c k i ngf or‘ f i t ’be t we e nhi ms e l fa ndt heo r g a ni s a t i on. Sc hui t e vo e r de ra l s ome nt i one dt h ei mp or t a nc eofc h e c k i ngf o r‘ f i t ’ : SoIne e dt ok nowwha tI ’ mg oi ngi nt o, s oIcan see whether I can actually facilitate that kind of scene, and whether facilitation is the thing that is needed from that organisation. Do you know what I mean? So I need to check what my usefulness will be. Diamond describes the different ways clients present the OD work required. Sometimes it will begin with a discussion about the problems. Other times clients jump straight to the intervention they think will address the problems: We talk and think about what the problem is, and what wants to happen? But s ome t i me spe opl ec omei na n dt h e ydon ’ twa ntt ot a l ka b outt hepr ob l e m.Th e y have a very specific something that they want you to do. And sometimes they just need help to figure that out, as well. And maybe what you are doing for a while, is just coaching, or you are just working with them on brainstorming what the problems are. At another point in the interview she elaborates about clients jumping straight to the intervention required: Al o toft i me sp e op l edo n’ tk nowwha tt he yne e da ndt he ydon’ tk n owwh a tt he y are asking for –they just know they have a problem, and typically they interrupt ... they mess themselves up by trying to diagnose the issue and then they call you What is pOD? 109 i nt oa c t ua l l ydoa ni nt e r ve n t i o n.The ys a y“ c oul dy o uc omei na ndd o x, could y ouc omei na ndwo r kwi t ht het e a morc oul dy o uc omei na ndd ot hi s ? ”The n y ouha vet oba c kupa n ds a y ,“ wha ti st hepr ob l e my oua r eho pi ngt hes ol ut i on wi l la dd r e s s ? ”Some t i me sy o uc a na nds ome t i me sy ouc a n’ tg e tt ot ha twi t h them. Waddell et a l . ( 2 004 ,p. 77)s pe a ka bo utt het hr e es t e p so ft he‘ e nt e r i ng ’p ha s ea sbe i ng : 1. clarifying the problem or opportunities; 2. identifying who the relevant client is; and 3. c ho os i nga nODpr a c t i t i one r , wh i c hi sb ot ht h eor ga n i s a t i on ’ sa n dt he pr a c t i t i one r ’ sr e s ponsibility. The first step was discussed in detail by the participants. The second step of identifying the relevant client was not mentioned. The third step was discussed, in relationship to the pr a c t i t i one r ’ sr e s po ns i bi l i t yi nhe l pi ngt heo r g a ni s a t i onchoose the correct OD practitioner. Contracting is the second part of this phase or activity. Diamond and Mones both spoke about the process of clarifying what is required from the OD process. Diamond sent her client a written proposal about how to work with the issue –conflict facilitation at two levels, personal and organisational –which he agreed to. Later she writes up a second proposal, recommending training for the team and organisational structural changes. Mones and her client, after many changes in plans, agreed that she would interview What is pOD? 110 everyone on the leadership team and one tier below them. Later she presented her client with a written proposal suggesting a programme that would address the findings. Schuitevoerder speaks about elements of this outside the case example discussion. He makes the point that it is important to get really clear on what your role with the organisation is, and what they are wanting you to do. He also mentions the need to check to see how much buy-in there is for that: Before I go into an organisation, I want to know what my role is. And I also want t ok no wwh oha sboug hti na ndwho s eha s n’ tboughti n.Somyr o l ei sa c t ua l l y f l ui d,a ndi t ’ sdi c t a t e d–i t ’ db eni c ei fIc oul ddi c t a t ei ta l lt het i me ,b ute ve ni fI we r et odi c t a t ei t ,i td oe s n ’ tne c e s s a r i l yme a nt h a ti t ’ sa c c e p t e da st ha t .Soi t ’ s very, very important, in going into an organisation, to really identify what your clear intent is. Else you can easily get set-up –to really fulfill a role which is not what you anticipated. So, before I go into an organisation, I often talk to the people that are employing me and I want to find out exactly what they are wanting me to do. And then get a sense of how I would operate within that, and then I have to find out how much buy-in they have for it. Contracting, according to Waddell et al. (2004, p. 81), can be formal or informal, and includes three areas: 1. clarifying what each party expects to gain from the OD process; 2. committing resources to the process; and 3. establishing the ground rules for working together, such as confidentiality. What is pOD? 111 Participants spoke about directly about the first step, and whilst it was not specifically discussed, implied the second step occurred in getting agreement to their proposals. The third step was not discussed during the interviews. Diagnosing Pr o c e s sWo r kha ss omet ool st ha ta r ev e r ypowe r f u li n‘ di a g n os i ng ’a nor g a ni s a t i on, a s discussed in pOD Tools. Some of these tools are used to elucidate the structure of an or g a ni s a t i o n’ sprocess –viewing the organisation as having a structural process and understanding what this is, is key in process-oriented organisational development. It gives the consultant an overview of the organisation that goes far deeper than the or g a ni s a t i o n’ spr esenting problems, and points to what type of intervention or interventions will be most effective. To summarise from pOD Tools, the tools used to i l l u mi n a t et h eo r g a ni s a t i on ’ ss t r uc t ur ei nc l ud e : t a k i ngt hec l i e nt ’ sund e r s t a ndi ngo ft hepr e s e nt i ngi s s uea s diagnostic; seeing the client as a reflection of the organisation itself –f ore xa mpl et hec l i e nt ’ s e dg e sa sr e f l e c t i ngt h eor g a ni s a t i on ’ se dg e s ; seeing the OD consultant as a part of what the person is attempting to do in the organisation; using the cons u l t a n t ’ sdr e a mtupr e a c t i o nsa sa ni n di c a t i onofa nor g a ni s a t i on’ s process that is not yet directly represented; and c on duc t i ngi n t e r v i e wswi t hor g a n i s a t i o nme mbe r st o‘ s e ns et hef i e l d ’ . What is pOD? 112 Also discussed in the pOD Tools section is how pOD looks at the presenting issues as an i ndi c a t i ono ft heor g a ni s a t i on’ ss t r uc t ur e–for example, the concept that whatever is marginalised as becoming problematic. So the focus is not just on the content of the issues, and this forms part of the activity of diagnosing. As a result of this, diagnosis is taking place with the organisation during every interaction with the client, and particularly in the earlier steps of the process including the initial meeting(s). Bot hMo ne sa ndSc hu i t e v oe r de rc o ndu c t e di n t e r vi e ws“ t os e ns et hef i e l d ”i nt he i rc a s e examples, with Mones synthesising her findings into a report, which she then presented back to the organisation. Schuitevoerder used this understanding to prepare himself for what to expect when he was facilitating the meeting with the large group. I nDi a mond ’ sc a s ee xa mp l ep a r toft hedi a g nos i st o okpl a c ei nwor k i ngwi t ht he management team –she worked with the team to identify the conditions, at an organisational level, that led to the conflict between two people on the team. Di a g no s i ngi sd e s c r i be dbyWa d de l le ta l .( 20 04)a st he“ pr oc e s sofa s s e s s i ngt he functioning of the organisation, department, group or job to discover the sources of pr o bl e msa nda r e a sf ori mpr ov e me nt ” .I ft hi ss t e pi sdon ewe l l , i tpoi nt st owa r dst he inte r ve n t i o nsr e qui r e dt oi mpr ov et heor g a ni s a t i on’ se f f e c t i ve n e s s( p.8 7) .I ti nv ol ve s : 1. collecting and analysing data about the current operations; and 2. feeding information about problems and opportunities back to managers and the organisation. What is pOD? 113 Both of the elements of diagnosis described above are discussed during the case examples. The diagnosis performed by pOD practitioners goes far beyond understanding t heor g a ni s a t i o n’ sc ons e ns usr e a l i t ypr obl e msa n dopp or t uni t i e s . Planning and Implementing Change According to Waddell et al. (2004, p. 38) this stage of the OD Process is a joint activity conducted between the OD practitioner and the organisation. They design interventions t ha ts ui tt heor g a ni s a t i ona ndt h ec ha ng ea g e n t ’ ss k i l l sa n dma k ep l a n st oi mpl e me nt these interventions. I nt hec a s ee xa mpl e st h ede g r e e st owhi c ht hi sa c t i vi t ywa sa‘ j oi nta c t i vi t y ’b e t we e nt he practitioner and organisation, differed. Mones worked very closely with her client, to the po i n tofde s c r i b i nghe r s e l fa sbe i ng“ l e da r o undbyt h enos e ” ,r a t he rt ha nbe i ng“ mor e di r e c t i ve ” , whi c hs hewou l dbenow.Di a mo ndwa smor edi r e c t i vea ndi ni t i a l l yp r opo s e d a method for working with the issues presented to her, which the client then agreed to. In a later proposal she incorporated ideas from working with the management group. Schuitevoerder was directed by the organisation to first facilitate a large group meeting, and later coach and facilitate smaller group meetings. These differing levels of involvement by the practitioner in the activity of planning interventions may be a reflection of the field the practitioner is working in –their momentary facilitation style may be dreamed up by the organisation. This points to another possible diagnostic –how the process is found in the facilitator. What is pOD? 114 Implementing the interventions forms a large part of this third phase. As this makes up such a large part of the practice of pOD, interventions are studied separately in the next s e c t i on“ p ODInt e r v e nt i ons ” . Waddell et al. (2004) go on to suggest that this stage of the OD process includes “ ma n a g i ngt hec ha ng ep r oc e s s ”( p .39)whi c hr e qui r e st h eODpr a c t i t i one rt owor kwi t h the resistance to change, creating a vision of the desired future state, gaining political s up por tf ort he s ec ha ng e sa nd“ ma na g i ngt h et r a n s i t i ono ft heo r g a ni s a t i ont owa r dst he m” (p. 168). Schupbach was brought in precisely to work with resistance to change and speaks about gaining political support for changes. Mones spoke about working with the resistant of her client to intr od uc et hec h a ng e ,ba s e donhi se dg e s ,a n dt h a tt hen e e df or“ po l i t i c k i ng ” was part of this process. Diamond helped the organisation manage the transition towards the change by working closely with the director at both a systems level and a personal level. Creating a vision of the desired future state was not mentioned by any of the participants. Evaluating and Institutionalising Change Evaluating and institutionalising change does not appear to have much focus in pOD yet, although participants indicated this might be changing. Any references participants made to evaluation came as a result of my probe questions. What is pOD? 115 Diamond performed an evaluation when she connected with the client in her case example many years later, and sent him a case example of the work she had done with his organisation: So in a way I had a bit of a follow up. He was very appreciative of the case example, he was very appreciative of the work, and so I got some feedback from him. I wished I got it earlier –Idi dn’ tf e e lIs ho ul dha v ewaited six years. I would do it now. Mones speaks about that not being a goal in her OD work until more recently: It h i nkIwa sha ppy ,t ogoi na ndma k eal i t t l es pl a s h .Id on’ tt h i n kIr e a l l y t houg ht ,i nt e r msofwha t ’ sg oi ngt obemos te f f e c t i ve . Schuitevoerder spoke about two different ways to measure change, which is a way of evaluating whether the expected results are being achieved. The first is via participant feedback: Feedback seems to be one of the most effective ways –asking people how they found it is often an effective way of evaluating. The second is through seeing a shift in the organisation into its secondary process. I ’ mi n t e r e s t e di ne dg ec ha ng e s .I no t h e rwo r ds ,wh e nIg oi n t oa nor g a n i s a t i o n,I recognise the primary and secondary issues in the organisation, and as the organisation goes over the edge, you begin to feel palpably, the system begins to change. And so I can measure it through a recognition of transition to secondary process in the organisation. What is pOD? 116 Waddell et al. (2004, p. 209) describe evaluation as being two-fold: 1. checking for the effectiveness of the implementation of the intervention; and 2. checking whether the expected results are being achieved or not. Institutionalising change occurs by reinforcing successful changes through feedback, rewards and training (Waddell et al., 2004, p. 39). The first part of the evaluation process as described by Waddell et al. (2004) was not discussed by participants. However, as most of the interventions were performed by the participants themselves and with feedback forming such a large part of the Process Work model, checking for the effectiveness of the intervention implementation was probably occurring in every moment but not spoken about. The same is probably true of the second step, on a moment by moment basis. Checking over a longer term basis was di s c u s s e dbySc hui t e voe r de r .I ns t i t ut i on a l i s i ngc ha ng ewa sh i n t e da td ur i ngDi a mon d’ s case example, but not discussed in any detail. POD Phases Using Process Work Terminology The four pOD Phases can be described using the following Process Work terminology: 1. Engaging with the organisation; 2. Ma p pi ngt heor g a ni s a t i on’ spr o c e s s ; 3. Planning and implementing the change process; and 4. Assessing and integrating the changes. What is pOD? 117 The amount of Worldwork knowledge that can directly be applied varies for each of these phases. In some instances, where there is no direct application of the Worldwork paradigm, there is a hole in the available knowledge for this activity. Often this hole is partially filled in by the relationship and communication skills a pOD practitioner has as a result of studying and practicing Process Work. The first phase of engaging with the organisation (entering and contracting as per Waddell et al., 2004) requires the practitioner to establish the relationship and utilises the Worldwork skills of pacing the primary process, building a container etc. Worldwork knowledge can be applied directly to aspects of the second and third phases –mapping t heor g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s s( d i a g nos i ng )a nd planning and implementing the change process (planning and implementing change). As already discussed, pOD has many me t ho dsf ord i a g no s i ngl i n k e dt oe l uc i da t i ngt heor g a ni s a t i on’ spr o c e s ss t r uc t ur e ,t ha tg o f a rbe y o ndun de r s t a nd i ngt heor g a ni s a t i o n’ sc onsensus reality problems and opportunities, as described by Waddell et al. (2004). Planning the change lies outside the theory and tools of Process Work, while implementing the change is one of Process Wor k’ ss t r e ng t hs .Noton l yd oe si tha vear a f tofi nterventions that can be implemented here, but its awareness of feedback and edges facilitates the change process. As already discussed, assessing and integrating the changes (evaluation and institutionalising change), over the long term, is an activity whi c hha s n’ tb e e nhi g ho nt hea ge n dai npOD to date, although this may be changing. Assessing in the moment is constantly occurring, and utilises the signal and feedback awareness of Process Work. Integration makes use of the concept of edges. What is pOD? 118 pOD Interventions The third of the pOD Phases, planning and implementing the change process, includes the implementation of a large range of interventions. Performing interventions forms such a large element of the practice of pOD that I have chosen to study and report findings about them in their own right. This section summarises the interventions performed by participants by type, and then gives an overview of these interventions. The last part of this section gives a detailed description of one intervention –the group process method. Interventions Overview Participants have carried out a large range of interventions in the organisations they have worked with. To get an overview of these interventions they have been itemised and sorted into the three levels of an organisation –personal, interpersonal and organisational –as defined in Problems and Issues. The table below gives an overview of each intervention and shows how many of the participants mentioned that intervention during the interviews. Whilst this is not a record of the all the interventions practiced by participants in their work, it does begin to give a picture of which interventions are implemented more frequently than others. What is pOD? 119 Intervention Mones Schupbach Diamond Schuitevoerder Personal Coaching x Peer Coaching Learning Lab x x x x x Work-life balance x Interpersonal Conflict resolution x x x Communications interventions x x x Team building/development x x x Diversity work Training x x x x x x x x Organisational Group process facilitation x x Organisation structure Policies x What is pOD? 120 Intervention Mones Schupbach Diamond Schuitevoerder Systems alignment x Strategic visioning & development x x x Myth related work x x x Organisational assessment x As mentioned earlier, Mindell (2002a) writes tha t“ a l ll e ve l s[ ofa nor g a ni s a t i o n]ne e d f oc u sf o rt heor g a ni s a t i ont owor kwe l l ”( p. 78) .Thi si sr e f l e c t e di nt het a bl e ,wh i c h shows a relatively even spread of interventions being executed in each of the levels of an organisation. Group process facilitation and coaching were two interventions all four participants mentioned. Other interventions that were mentioned frequently were conflict resolution, team building, communication interventions, training, strategic visioning and development and myth related work. It is not always clear which category interventions belong to. For example, myth related work is listed under the organisation level, but could also occur at any of the other levels. Likewise, diversity work could be a organisational intervention, and training and organisational assessment could be implemented at any of the levels depending on the focus of the intervention. What is pOD? 121 Limited information about the interventions follows. With the exception of the group process method (which is included at the end of this section), only minimal details of these interventions were discussed in the interviews. Data exemplars are only included if they have not been included in the case examples. Personal Interventions Coaching, peer coaching, the learning lab and addressing work-life balance issues are four personal interventions discussed by participants. Coaching was mentioned by all of the participants as an intervention they had used in their work with organisations, and Diamond briefly described this work: We have interventions around coaching –certainly working individually, helping leaders and managers in organisations with the issues that they have. Mones described the learning lab: The learning lab is something that would really be about a stress free environment where people can practice working with double signals, practice dealing with their own edges around picking up different things, dealing with rank stuff. Really where they are there to learn. No details about peer coaching or the work-life balance intervention were given in the interviews. What is pOD? 122 Interpersonal Interventions Interpersonal interventions cited by participants included conflict resolution, communications interventions, team building/development, diversity work and training. Details about how to perform conflict resolution were not given in the interviews, with the exception of Diamond making the point that her conflict facilitation between two people was purposely kept short and factual. Schuitevoerder makes the point that he prefers the term conflict facilitation rather than conflict resolution: Conf l i c tr e s o l ut i o ni s n’ tr e a l l yt her i g htwo r df orme–i t ’ sr e a l l ybe g i nni ngt o facilitate conflict and unfold it. Communications interventions include those related to working with double signals, edges and rank. Diamond gives an example: We also work a lot with double signals and basic rank and signals. And helping people cross edges to really say and be straight, you know, learn how to interact more. We have a lot of communication inter ve n t i o nsa r oun dt h a t .Th a t ’ spa r tof the group process sometimes. She goes on to give an explanation of team building, another of the group level interventions: We also have a whole lot of team work interventions, which are different from group process. Team work is more about everybody identifying their strengths, What is pOD? 123 and empowering people to bring out their own different strengths and to bring out those of others. Three of the four interview participants mention training as an intervention. Diamond describ e swha ts h eme a nsbyt h a t :“ …y out r a i na sy ouwor kwi t hag r ou p–you share wha ty oua r ed oi nga sat r a i n i ng ,s ope op l ec a npi c ki tupt he ms e l ve s ” .Mon e ss p oke about delivering on-g oi ngt r a i ni ngt o“ s l owl ywor kont r a n s f or mi ngt hec ul t ur e , mor e internally ” .Sc hu i t e v oe r de rs p ok ea b outbe i nga s k e dt ode l i ve rt r a i n i nga bo utg r oup facilitation, and how to integrate the Worldwork model into their organisation. Details about diversity work were not given in the interviews. Organisational Interventions Organisational interventions include group process facilitation, interventions related to t heor g a ni s a t i o n’ ss t r u c t ur e ,p ol i c i e s ,s y s t e msa l i g nme nt ,s t r a t e g i cvi s i oni ng& development, myth related work and organisational assessment. Group process facilitation is one of the interventions mentioned by all participants. Here Diamond speaks briefly about the one aspect of the method: We have a group process method, where we bring in the background ghosts and represent the roles that are more marginalised as a way to unstuck a group around something. A detailed description of facilitating a group process with a group that have no previous knowledge or experience of Process Work, is provided at the end of this section. What is pOD? 124 Schupbach spoke in the case example about an application of the group process method to gather organisational feedback from people over an extended period of time and who are geographically dispersed, via the on-line bulletin board. Diamond gives an example of what she means by systems alignment: Let's say the problem is like performance, getting people to perform better. And i t ’ sno tj us taque s t i ono ft r a i ni ng , a ndi t ’ sn otj us taque s t i ono fb e t t e r management and better performance evaluation, but you have to ask yourself, are all the systems aligned? Is the pay package, is the compensation aligned with the performance goal? If you want people to work better in teams, but the c ompe ns a t i onp a c ka g ei sb a s e doni nd i vi dua lpe r f or ma nc e , t h a t ’ sl i k eal a c kof alignment. Strategic visioning and development and myth related work are mentioned by many of t hepa r t i c i pa n t s .Sc hu pba c ht a l k sa bou tha v i ngas t r a t e gyde v e l opme ntmode l ,a“ t hr e e da yg r oupp r oc e s s ” ,of t e nc o ndu c t e da sas t r a t e g i cr e t r e a t : Fore xa mpl e , nowI ’ mi nt hemi dd l eo ft he s es t r a t e g i c , of f -site retreats. The next one is for a so-c a l l e d‘ s ma l lbu s i ne s s ’i nt h eUn i t e dSt a t e s–a for-profit organisation with a $10m turnover. They want to break into a new market and are de v e l opi ngat hr e ey e a rbus i ne s sp l a n.I ’ mf a c i l i t a t i ngt h et h r e eda y soft he retreat –I ’ vede ve l ope dapr oc e s s -oriented strategy development model that I am using. It also starts out with preparation for where they really want to go and who the s t a k e h ol de r sa r e .… Us ua l l yt h eCFO[ c h i e ff i na nc i a lof f i c e r ]g i ve sar e por t , s o I ’ ll sit with the CFO to work out what numbers to present. What will they show What is pOD? 125 and how do we want to present those? I go through every single detail regarding the present strategy. All of this finally gets mapped out as a three day group process, with different phases where we work with different individuals, teams and the whole group. It has a group process phase and a brainstorming phase in it. He makes the point that in large international organisation, consultants are not included in the high level strategic decisions made by an organisation –these are decided before the c on s ul t a nti si nvo l ve d.Thec o ns ul t a nt ’ swor ks uc ha sh ede s c r i be sa b ove ,oc c ur swi t h strategic issues at the next level down –strategic issues that come as a consequence of the high level strategic decisions. Both Diamond and Schuitevoerder spoke about strategy development in terms of vi s i on i n ga nds t r a t e gy .Sc h ui t e voe r d e rr e f e r r e dt oi tan umbe roft i me sa s“ v i s i o ni ng t owa r dsas t r a t e g i cpl a n” .Di a mo ndde f i ne st hi sa sapr oc e s sofwor k i ngout“ whe r ea r e weg oi ng ,we r ea r ewehe a d e da ndh owt og e tt he r e ” .Th e ybo t hma ket hel i n kbe t we e n the vision and strategy of the organisation and myth work. Here Diamond explains: Le t ’ ss a yt heo r g a ni s a t i onne e dshe l pwi t hc onn e c t i ngwi t hwh oi ti s , i t ’ sa tab i g crossroad, so we do mythic work. Which is exactly what we would do when an individual has big questions about their development. We look at the myth and the deeper symbols, and the persistent ghost roles or allies of the organisation, and help it connect with its myth. Diamond mentions organisational assessment as one of the interventions she performs: What is pOD? 126 We have an assessment –we can do interviews and assessment. We can do things like helping an organisation by looking at and analysing the data, looking at what the members say. Assessing what people in the organisation say about it and then helping someone interpret those data. No details about interventions related to the organisational structures or policies were discussed during the interviews. Group Process Method Details Thede t a i l so f‘ ho wt odo’ma nyoft he s ei nt e r ve n t i o nswa sn otdi s c us s e dd ur i ngt he interviews, with two exceptions. The first is the steps of facilitating a group process with a group that has no background in Process Work. This is described below. The second is a ne xa mpl eofhowt obr i ngi n‘ t h eg ho s t s ’ .Thi sha sbe e nde s c r i be di nt hes e c t i ono n pOD Tools. Schuitevoerder gives details on how to facilitate a group process with a group which has no experience in Process Work. He starts out by running through the steps of a ‘ t r a di t i o na l ’Pr oc e s sWor kg r ou ppr oc e s s : Le t ’ st hi nkf i r s ta b outt het r a di t i on a lg r ouppr o c e s s , f r o m aPr oc e s sWor k pe r s p e c t i ve .Sa yt he r e ’ snot opi c , ok a y ?Yo ug oi n,y ouc he c kou tt he atmosphere, you sort towards consensus, you pick up the roles, you work with the ghost roles, you unfold them, you look for edges and hotspots, and you help unfold the process. Then you frame during that whole scene –is that correct? Tha t ’ se s s e nt i a l l yt he Process Work model. What is pOD? 127 He speaks about having this model mapped inside of himself when he facilitates a group wi t hn oba c k g r ou ndi nPr oc e s sWor k :“ Nowwhe nIg oi nt oag r o up,Iha vet ha tma ppe d inside me –i ti sme . ”Hede s c r i be st hepr o c e s sofc he c k i ngou t the atmosphere and beginning the sorting process with the group: SoIwa l ki na ndIs a yt ot h e m,“ i t ’ sa nhon our , apl e a s ur et obehe r e ,e t c ,e t c ” .I k i ndo fs h a r eal i t t l ea bo utmy s e l f .AndIs a y ,“ wha ts hou l dwedowi t ht hi s t i me ? ”… An dIg i v ei tto the group. And I already know in my pocket, six or e i g h ti s s ue st he ya r eg o i ngt owa ntt ol ooka t .An dt ha t ’ st h ea dva n t a g eIh a ve . And then I stay wide awake. Someone will bring up an issue, and someone will bring up another issue, and what I might doi ss a yt ot h e m,“ y ouk n owt h i si s s ue l ook sl i kei t ’ squ i t ei nt e ns e .Andweha v eawh ol eb unc hoft i me .Shou l dwe focus on an intense issue as it comes up, or should we try and get a whole bunch ofi s s ue s , be f or ewede c i d ewh e r et og o? ”Yous e ewea r e just in the sorting pr o c e s s ,c a ny ous e et ha t ?I t ’ sj us tor g a n i c . Schuitevoerder then explains the process of sorting towards consensus, showing how he constantly gives the decision making to the group and frames what is going on: SS: Now if they say l e t ’ sf oc usonon ea si tc ome sup ,Is a y“ g r e a t ” .I ft he ys a y l e t ’ sg e tawho l ebu nc hofi de a sIs a y ,“ l e tmep utt he mo nt h eboa r df o rus ” . HH:Andwh a th a ppe nsi fon epe r s ons a y sl e t ’ sf oc u so none , a ndo t h e r ss a yl e t ’ s get the issues up? What is pOD? 128 SS: I give it b a c kt ot h egr ou p.I ’ mf a c i l i t a t i ng ,s oIs a y ,“ we l l ,i tl ook sl i k ewe have diversity in the group about how to proceed. Well, how should we decide f r i e nds ? ”Or ,“ h ows houl dwed e c i de ? ”–and give it back to the group. And the group decides how to proceed. Frequently, an early group will just choose to go wi t ha ni s s u et h a t ’ sho t ,I ’ l ls a y“ t hi sl o ok sho t ,l e t ’ ss t a ywi t ht h a t ” .Buti ft h e g r ou pc ho os e st os or tt owa r d sac ons e n s us ,a ts omep oi nti nt i meI ’ l ls a y“ doy ou t hi nki t ’ st i met oc h oos ea ni s sue yet? ”An dt he y ’ l ls a yy e sorno.Tha t ’ si t .The y do n’ tk nowa ny t h i nga boutPr oc e s sWor k . … I ’ l ls a y ,“ howdowec h oos e ? ” ,a n d pe o pl ewi l le ve n t u a l l yc hoo s ea ni s s u ea ndI ’ l ls a y“ g r e a t ,l e t ’ sg owi t ht hi sone ” . Andwe ’ veg otc ons e ns us .An di fwedon ’ tha ve ,I ’ l ls p e ndt i met h e r e .Ands a y , “ y o uk nowi t ’ sr e a l l yi mpo r t a ntf orust or e a l l ys or twhi c hi sbe s t ,l e t ’ st a k et i me here. This is part of the community getting to know itself, or the group getting to k n owi t s e l f .Nopr ob l e m,l e t ’ st a k et i me ” . HH: So you are framing it. SS:Ye s ,Ij us tf r a mei ti nawa yt h a tma ke si the l p f u l .I ’ ds a y“ t h i si sve r y i mpor t a n tt ha te ve r y one ’ svo i c eb ehe a r d ” . He outlines his ideas about picking up the roles and ghost roles: Once we get there, we get into an is s u e ,a n dIhe a rt hev oi c e sc omi ngo ut .Id on’ t r e qu i r epe opl et omovene c e s s a r i l y .I fI ’ vebe e nwi t ht h eg r oupf o ranumbe rof t i me s ,I ’ l lbe g i nt oi nt r oduc er ol epl a y… y ouk n owr ol ei d e a s ,f r omo nes i det o a no t he r .Butf r e q ue n t l yI ’ l lus ei ta sat ownme e t i ng .“ The r ei so nes i de ,c a n s ome onet a l kt ot h eo t he r ? ”Some t i me sIdon ’ te ve ns a yt ha t ,Ij us ts a y“ l e t ’ she a r What is pOD? 129 y ourt h oug ht s ” ,a n dI ’ ml oo k i ngf ort heg ho s t s .Al mo s ti nv a r i a b l yy oud on’ tha ve to frame a ghost or find it, it will come up itself. Andy o u’ veg o tt oc a t c hi ta si t c ome su p,c osi tc ome sups ubt l ya ndd i s a ppe a r s .SoIc a t c ht heg ho s t ,Is a y“ he y , t ha t ’ sav oi c et ha t ’ si mp or t a nt ,c a ny ous a ymo r ea bou tt ha t ? ”Andwehe l pbr i ng out the ghost. And there we are! He finishes by describing the process of watching for and working with edges and hotspots: Andt he nI ’ mwa t c hi ngf o re dg e s , a ndt he y ’ l lof t e nc on s t e l l a t ebe t we e nt wo pe o pl e .I ’ l ls e et wope o pl ei nt heg r o upc ommuni c a t i ngi nt e n s e l y .Andy ou’ l ls e e a ne dg ea ndI ’ l ls a y“ l e t ’ sg os l owl yhe r e ” . He wraps the discussion up by speaking about the profoundness of Process Work: Actually, you can really do effective Process Work. I think Process Work is a pr o f o undmo de l ,a ndt hepr of o und ne s soft h emode li st h a ti t ’ sn otamo de l ,i t ’ sa pr o c e s s .AndI ’ mf ol l o wi ngt hepr oc e s s .It hi nkt h a t ’ swhyProcess Work is so profound –i t ’ sa c t ua l l ywha t ’ sh a pp e ni ng !Andt he ny ou’ r ec r e a t i ngaf r a me wor k f orwha t ’ sha pp e ni ng ,a ndwe ’ r ea b l et ot r a c ki tt hr oug ht hemode l . What is pOD? 130 Chapter 7 DISCUSSION This chapter reviews the findings of this study and then proposes a pOD model based on these findings. It concludes with a discussion about the difference between organisational development and organisational change. Findings Overview and Discussion The findings of this study are organised into three areas –‘ I de a sBe hi ndpOD’ , ‘ Appl i c a t i onsofpOD’a nd‘ p ODi nPr a c t i c e ’ . Ideas Behind pOD When participants were asked how they would define process-oriented OD (pOD), no one definition was given. For the most part, participants were still arriving at a definition. However a synthesis of their responses generates the following definition: It is the application of Process Work and more specifically, Worldwork, to the field of organisational development. It identifies and brings awareness to the process of the organisation and facilitates the unfolding of that process. There is an isomorphic aspect between personal development and organisational de v e l opme nt ,or , a sDi a mo ndpu ti t ,“ t he r ea r eal oto fp a r a l l e l st ha t are useful between i ndi vi d ua lt h e r a pya n dor g a n i s a t i ont h e r a py , oror g a n i s a t i o na lde ve l o pme nt ” . Importantly, there is one paradigm in the background of pOD –Worldwork, which a “ pr o c e s s -or i e nt e da ppr oa c ht og r oupwo r k ”( Di a monde ta l . , 200 4,p .9) .The What is pOD? 131 significance of having such a well developed and all-encompassing theory behind pOD is enormous. It gives the practitioner a road map to follow in their work with organisations, and a set of tools to employ in the process. Worldwork concepts referred to by participants were presented and defined in pOD Concepts. These included the perspective that organisations are living organisms –“ we a r ea l wa y sl ook i nga tg r oup sa so r g a ni s m,or g a ni s a t i on sa so r g a ni s m”( Di a mond )–with a process structure. It has a pr i ma r ya nds e c o nda r yp r oc e s s , de s c r i be dr e s pe c t i ve l ya s“ a r ol et ha tn e e dst obes a t i s f i e d,i t ’ sg otg oa l sa nda g e nd a sa ndt hos eha vet obes a t i s f i e d” ( Di a mond )a n d“ t het hi ng st ha tdi s t ur bt he m, a ndt a ket he ma wa yf r omt he i ri nt e nt i on” (Mones), and edges. The concept of a field, and roles and ghost roles –“ t hi ng st ha t a r e n ’ te xp r e s s e dg e tma r g i na l i s e d ,a n dt he yg e thi dd e na ndt he yma ni f e s ti nt e r msof g h os t s ”( Sc hu i t e v oe r d e r )–was introduced, and that facilitating the interaction between them is a powerful intervention. The concepts of deep democracy and the ideas of rank and power were outlined, i nc l ud i ngt h ec onc e ptt h a t“ t ho s ewhoha v epowe rf r e qu e nt l y ,a r en ota sc o ns c i ou so ft he wa y st he yu s ei ta st h os ewhoh a vel e s spowe r ”( Sc hui t e vo e r de r ) .Theholographic principle and the five levels of group or organisation life were defined –systemic, group, sub-g r oup ,r e l a t i ons h i pa ndpe r s o na l .Or g a n i s a t i on a lmy t h s ,“ t hei nd i v i d ua la ndt i me l e s s character of an organisation, which is its biggest potential a n ds our c eofp owe r ” (Schupbach, 2006c) concluded the discussion about the Worldwork theories outlined in pOD Concepts. What is pOD? 132 These concepts are all powerful in their own right, and in combination, give the practitioner working with organisations an impressive and cohesive grounding from which to work. A number of these concepts deserve particular mention. The first is the concept that an organisation has a process. This process structure gives the OD practitioner a total overview of their work with an organisation, which goes much deeper t ha nt heor g a ni s a t i on’ spr e s e nt i ngpr ob l e ms .I tpo i n t st owhi c hi nt e r ve n t i o nswi l lb emos t effective and enables changes in the organisation to be tracked and comprehended in light of the overall process. The second is the idea that working to help an individual develop, will develop the organisation –so, for example, supporting an individual to communicate mor edi r e c t l ywi l li mpa c tt h eor g a n i s a t i on ’ sc ommun i c a t i o nc ul t ur e . pOD Tools are specific and tangible methods and techniques based on the Worldwork concepts that pOD practitioners can apply in their work with organisations. Tools ou t l i ne dbys t u dypa r t i c i pa n t si nc l u de dho wt oe l uc i d a t ea nor g a n i s a t i on ’ sp r oc e s s structure, taking a structural viewpoint on issues and techniques for unfolding an or g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s s .Fi veme t ho dst ha tc a nbeus e dt oma pt h eor g a n i s a t i on ’ sp r oc e s s were discussed –t h ef i r s tt wou s et h ec l i e n t ’ sun de r s t a nd i ngoft h ei s s u ea si nd i c a t i v eof t heor g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s sa nds e et hec l i e nta ndt heir edges and problems as a reflection of the organisation. Viewing the consultant as a missing role in the organisation and as be i ng‘ dr e a me du p’byt heor g a n i s a t i o n,a n dc on duc t i ngi nt e r v i e wst os e ns et hef i e l dwe r e three other methods that were discussed in this study. Taking a structural viewpoint on issues was another set of tools discussed, as these also s he dl i g h tona nor g a n i s a t i on ’ sp r oc e s s .The s ei nc l u de du nde r s t a n di ngt ha tma r g i na l i s e d aspects become problematic, that personal edges can lead to organisation edges and What is pOD? 133 s e e i ngd i s t u r be r sa sa wa ke n e r s .Te c hni qu e sf oru nf ol di nga nor g a n i s a t i o n’ spr oc e s s , t he third group of pOD tools, included framing interventions from the viewpoint of the primary process, letting the process point to the intervention, the consultant going over t heor g a ni s a t i o n’ se dg e sa ndr e pr e s e nt i ngg ho s tr ol e sa n da ddr e s s i nge dg ef i g u r e s . This overview highlights the close relationship between the concepts and tools of Worldwork. Later in the study the phases of applying Worldwork in an organisation were outlined, with these tools being used at various stages during these phases. Applications of pOD The four participants have worked as practitioners of pOD in a wide range of organisations, including governmental, non-governmental, for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. The organisations mentioned during the interviews included intentional communities, non profit organisations, NGOs, labour unions, hospitals and health care organisations, government organisation, educational institutions, small businesses and Fortune 500 and Fortune 50 companies. Communication issues, issues around power and rank and dealing with strategic changes were the most common examples of problems participants named when talking about the kinds of problems they worked with in organisations. All the issues were categorised by content using a condensed version of the five levels of group or organisation life listed above –the three categories used were organisational level, interpersonal level and personal level. The majority of issues were interpersonal ones –these included communication issues, particularly around being direct, difficulties in collaborating, rank What is pOD? 134 problems, dealing with conflict, sub-group marginalisation and diversity issues –each issue was generally identified by a number of the participants. Dealing with strategic changes, an organisational issue, was also mentioned a number of times. Other issues in this category were only mentioned once, and were related to how the organisation was s t r uc t ur e d ,i nc l ud i nga ni s s uewi t ht hen umbe rofama na g e r ’ sdi r e c tr e p or t sa ndwi t ha n organisation having two different functions. Only one personal issue mentioned by a participant and this related to an issue of work-life imbalance. pOD in Practice The Deep Democracy of Open Forums (Mindell, 2002a) gives an example of an application of Worldwork, Open Forums, and outlines the steps required to prepare for and run an open forum. The question of whether steps exist in the application of Worldwork to organisations was posed: do steps exist that provide the framework with which to apply the concepts and tools –from the moment contact is made with the organisation until the work is complete? This was answered by summarising the key elements of four case examples described by the participants (Fortune 500 companies, a small company and a non-profit educational organisation). These elements were c a t e g or i s e dt os e ei ft he r ewa sa nya l i g nme ntwi t ht he“ g e ne r a lmode lofpl a nn e dc ha ng e ” proposed by Waddell et al. (2004) as described in the Literature Review. This suggested that steps are discernible when applying Worldwork to working with organisations. I refer to them as phases to emphasize their multi-faceted, iterative nature, and call them pOD Phases. There are four such phases –engaging with the organisation; ma p pi ngt heor g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s s ;pl a n ni nga n di mp l e me nt i ngt hec ha ng ep r o c e s s ;a nd What is pOD? 135 assessing and integrating the changes. While these phases generally occurred in sequence, there was considerable overlap and feedback between them. The first phase, engaging with the organisation, broadly speaking consisted of receiving the invitation to work in an organisation, meeting up with the client to clarify the problems or opportunities, check i ngf or‘ f i t ’be t we e nt hec l i e nta ndo r g a ni s a t i on, c l a r i f y i ngwha twa sr e qui r e df r omt heODp r oc e s sa n dt h epr a c t i t i o ne r ’ sr o l ea n d checking to see how much buy-in there was for that. Ma p pi ngt heor g a ni s a t i on’ spr o c e s s ,t hes e c ondphase, utilised the pOD tools of e l uc i da t i nga nor g a n i s a t i o n’ sp r oc e s ss t r uc t ur ea ndt a k i ngas t r uc t ur a lvi e wpoi nton issues, to understand the process structure of the organisation. This diagnostic step began during the first phase and continued into this second phase. The third phase, planning and implementing the change process, was a joint activity between the practitioner and the organisation. It included the planning and implementation of interventions at all levels of the organisation –organisational, interpersonal and personal. Given the large body of knowledge about interventions, these were described separately in this study. Working with any edges or resistance that come up and gaining political support for the changes formed part of this phase. The tools of unf ol di ngt heor g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s sa r eu t i l i s e dhe r e . Assessing and integrating the changes was the final pOD Phase. Longer term assessment of the effectiveness of the interventions appeared not to have been a big focus in the past, although this appeared to be changing. One way of evaluating the effectiveness of the interventions was by asking for feedback, and a way of observing change was through What is pOD? 136 seeing a shift of the organisation into its secondary process. Whilst immediate assessment of the interventions was not discussed, feedback forms such a large part of the Process Work model that this would be occurring naturally as part of the implementation of interventions. Integrating the changes occurs by ensuring the all edges to the changes have been worked through. pOD Interventions The third of the pOD Phases, planning and implementing the change process, includes the implementation of interventions. Interventions mentioned by participants were wide ranging, and were sorted into the same three categories as those used to categorise the or g a ni s a t i o n’ spr ob l e msa ndi s s ue s–personal level, interpersonal level and organisational level. Coaching, peer coaching, the learning lab and addressing work-life balance issues were four personal interventions discussed by participants. Interpersonal interventions cited by participants included conflict resolution, communications interventions, team building/development, diversity work and training. Organisation interventions include group process facilitation and interventions related to the or g a ni s a t i o n’ ss t r u c t ur e ,p ol i c i e s ,s y s t e msa l i g nme nt ,s t r a t e g i cvi s i oni ng&d e ve l op me nt , myth related work and organisational assessment. What is pOD? 137 pOD Model To conclude this study I propose a definition of pOD. The model is based on the findings of this study, and takes the conversation about pOD one step further –my hope is that in providing this model a discussion will ensue and more responses and more research will take place, and the definition of pOD will be refined. It may look something like I propose –or it might take on a totally different form. Process-oriented organisational development, or pOD is the n a meI ’ veus e dt ode s c r i b e the application of Worldwork to organisations. Just as Worldwork is an application of Process Work, pOD is an application of Worldwork. Another example of an application of Worldwork is Open Forums, as described by Mindell (2002a). My proposed pOD model is as follows: What is pOD? 138 pOD = Worldwork + pOD Practice Background philosophy Phases of working with an organisation Concepts pOD Phases - Organisations as living organism - Engaging with the organisation - Process structure of organisations - Ma ppi ngt h eor g a ni s a t i on ’ spr o c e s s - Field, roles and ghost roles - Planning and implementing the - Deep democracy and eldership - Rank and power - Levels of work - Myths change process - Assessing and integrating the changes Tools Interventions - Ma ppi ngo r g ’ spr oc e s ss t r uc t u r e - Personal (eg coaching) - Structural viewpoint on issues - Interpersonal (eg conflict resolution) - Unfolding techniques - Organisational (eg group process and - Relationship work tools - Individual work tools strategic development) Interventions form part of the third phase, - Inner work tools planning and implementing the change process. What is pOD? 139 The model I propose suggests pOD is made up of two main elements –the first is Worldwork, the concepts and tools drawn from the main body of Process Work theory and practice, which form the background of pOD. The second is what I ’ v ec a l l e dpOD Practice, the phases of applying Worldwork to working with an organisation. Worldwork is well developed, with an existing body of knowledge. pOD Practice is less developed, and this thesis begins to flesh this out. The first element of the pOD model I propose is Worldwork. Worldwork is the application of Process Work to groups (Diamond & Jones, 2004, p. 9) and this provides the background philosophy, including the concepts and tools that pOD practitioners use. This body of knowledge is well developed and taught in the MACF, the bi-annual Worldwork conference, and Worldwork seminars and classes around the world. Many books (Mindell, 1995) and papers exist about various aspects of Worldwork. In the pOD model I differentiate between the concepts and the tools of Worldwork. The former includes the concepts of deep democracy, roles and ghost roles, rank and power. These are discussed in pOD Concepts. The tools are those methods and techniques that are based on these concepts, and include ma pp i nga nor g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s ss t r uc t u r e , t a k i ngas t r uc t ur a lvi e wpo i n to ni s s u e sa ndt e c h ni que sf orun f o l di nga nor g a ni s a t i on’ s process. These are outlined in pOD Tools. Other tools such as those required to do relationship work or work with an individual, including inner work tools, are included in the pOD model, but not discussed in this study. The second element of the proposed pOD model, pOD Practice, is made up of the pOD Phases and interventions. This thesis proposes there are four phases practitioners go What is pOD? 140 through when working with organisations –from the first moment of contact with an organisation until the work is complete. These iterative phases include the implementation of interventions, the activities designed and carried out in response to an identified organisational problem or issue. At this point in time the body of knowledge about pOD Practice is at various stages of development. The pOD Phases are less developed, consisting mainly of case studies in the various websites reviewed in the Literature Review. pOD practitioners are applying Worldwork to organisations –but the steps they follow to do this have not been spelled out or documented. Some of the interventions, on the other hand, are highly developed and documented, such as the group process method, conflict facilitation and diversity work. Others, such as coaching and organisational assessment are being developed as more practitioners work with organisations, with very little documentation available. The pOD Phases, the phases of working with an organisation suggested in this thesis are: 1. Engaging with the organisation; 2. Ma p pi ngt heor g a ni s a t i on’ spr o c e s s ; 3. Planning and implementing the change process; and 4. Assessing and integrating the changes. These phases are discussed in pOD Phases and align with the activities o ft he“ g e ne r a l mod e lo fpl a n ne dc ha ng e ”( Wa d de l le ta l . , 200 4)–entering and contracting; diagnosing; What is pOD? 141 planning and implementing the change; and evaluating and institutionalising the change – as described in the Literature Review. Interventions, which are implemented during the third phase, planning and implementing the change process, have been separated in the pOD Model as they form such a large component in the practice of pOD. They have been organised into three categories, which reflect the three levels of an organisation –organisational, interpersonal and personal. Group process, conflict resolution and coaching are examples of interventions in each of the categories. These and other interventions are outlined in pOD Interventions. Issues can also be categorised in the same way, as described in Problems and Issues. There is a close relationship between both elements of the proposed pOD Model. Worldwork provides the philosophy that underpins the pOD Practice. Worldwork concepts are employed throughout the pOD Practice. The tools used to map an or g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s ss t r uc t u r e ,a n dt a keas t r uc t u r a lv i e wp oi ntoni s s ue s are used in the first two phases –engaging and mapping the process. The unfolding techniques are used as interventions in the third phase, during the implementation of the change process. Relationship work and individual work tools are also used as interventions in this third phase, and throughout the pOD Practice. What is pOD? 142 Development or Change? Over the course of my study, understanding whether there was a difference between organisational development (OD) and organisational change (OC) became important to me. Was my study actually an exploration of pOC rather than pOD? Waddell et al. (2004) define org a n i s a t i on a ld e ve l op me nta s“ as y s t e mwi dea pp l i c a t i ono f behavioural science knowledge to the planned development and reinforcement of or g a ni s a t i o na ls t r a t e g i e s ,s t r uc t ur e sa n dpr oc e s s e sf o ri mpr ovi nga no r g a ni s a t i on’ s e f f e c t i ve n e s s ”( p.4 ) . Th e ydi f f e r e nt iate between organisational development (OD) and organisational change (OC) as follows: while OD can include OC, organisational development has a focus of transferring the knowledge and skills to the organisation, that will enable organisations to manage this and future changes themselves. Organisational de v e l opme nti s“ i nt e nd e dt oc ha ng et heor g a n i s a t i o ni nap a r t i c u l a rdi r e c t i on ,t owa r ds i mpr ov e dpr ob l e ms o l vi ng , r e s pon s i v e ne s s ,qu a l i t yofwor kl i f ea n de f f e c t i ve ne s s ”( p .6) . Organisational change, on the other hand, is more broad and can apply to any change in an organisation, including technical and managerial change, and social innovations. The f oc u so fma k i ngt heor g a ni s a t i o n‘ mor ede v e l ope d’i snotac r i t e r i ai nor g a ni s a t i on change (p. 6). It is perhaps significant that the Master of Arts Conflict Facilitation and Organisational Cha ng e( MACFOC)p r og r a mof f e r e dbyt hePr oc e s sWor kI n s t i t ut eus e s“ Or g a ni s a t i o na l Cha ng e ” , r a t h e rt h a n“ Or g a n i s a t i on a lDe v e l opme nt ”i ni t sd e g r e et i t l e .Thep r og r a mi s desc r i b e di nt h e200 6St ude ntHa n dbo oka sa“ po s t -graduate academic degree in the theory and methods of Worldwork and its application to conflict resolution and What is pOD? 143 c ommuni t ya ndo r g a ni s a t i on a lc h a ng ep r oc e s s e s ”( Pr oc e s sWor kI ns t i t u t e ,20 06, p.5 ) . The subject i nt h ec ur r i c ul umwhi c hi smos ta ppl i c a b l et ot hi ss t u dyi sc a l l e d“ Wor l dwo r k App l i c a t i on si nOr g a n i s a t i on a lCh a ng ea n dDe ve l op me nt ” ,a ndl ook sa tt he“ n a t u r eof change and growth in organisations, and at how the Worldwork model is applied within organisati o ns ”( Pr o c e s sWor kI n s t i t ut e , 200 6,p .15 ) .I ti sn otc l e a rwhe t he rt e r ms organisational development and organisational change are differentiated in this subject, wi t hr e f e r e nc e st obot h‘ c h a ng e ’a n d‘ g r owt h’ ,t hel a t t e ri mp l y i ngs omef or mof development. Based on the differentiation given above by Waddell et al. (2004) I feel that this study is primarily an exploration of what organisational development (pOD), rather than organisational change (pOC), is from a Process Work perspective, as pOD best seems to cover what participants were referring to in their interview. What is pOD? 144 Chapter 8 CONCLUSION In conclusion, this chapter reviews this study of what organisational development is from a Process Work perspective. It then outlines the contribution to the field and makes suggestions for future research. Review of Study The application of Process Work, and more specifically Worldwork to organisations and to the field of organisational development is an exciting and relatively new area of work. While there are some people working in this field, they are in many ways pioneers and developing ways to apply Worldwork in this setting as they go. The literature available about this application is limited and no formal research has been conducted in this area. The Master of Arts in Conflict Facilitation and Organisational Change (MACFOC) was established in 2004, and includes teaching in the area of organisational change and de v e l opme nt .Th epr og r a ma d opt s“ a ne xpe r i me nt a la pp r oa c hi nl ook i nga tn e wwa y st o integrate Worldwor kt he o r ya ndme t ho dsi n t oo r g a n i s a t i on a ll i f e ” ,r e c og n i s i ngt ha t “ Wor l dwor kc o nc e p t sa ndt o ol sa r ej us tbe g i n ni ngt obeu s e di nas y s t e ma t i cwa yt o or g a ni s a t i o ns ”( Pr o c e s sWor kI n s t i t ut e , 200 6,p . 1 5) . This study sought to further the process of developing process-oriented Organisational Development (pOD), by contributing to the emergence of theories and formal documentation of this field and by providing a snapshot of the stage of development that pOD is at now, in 2007. The research question this study a ns we r si s :“ Wha ti s or g a ni s a t i o na lde v e l o pme n tf r omaPr o c e s sWo r kp e r s pe c t i ve ? ” What is pOD? 145 The findings of this study were organised into three areas –‘ I de a sBe hi ndp OD’ , ‘ Appl i c a t i onsofpOD’a nd‘ p ODi nPr a c t i c e ’ .Myr e vi e woft hel i t e r a t ur es ug g e s t e dt ha t there was some writing on the first area –both in books about WorldWork (Mindell, 1995) and on various websites (Schupbach, 2006b and Diamond, n.d.b). Some applications of pOD were mentioned briefly in the books, and increasingly frequently so in the websites. The amount of information on the practice of pOD, the third area, was mixed –both the books and the websites contained information about some interventions, for example, group process methods. There was less information about other interventions, such as coaching techniques. Information about the actual process of consulting to an organisation in the area of pOD –from the moment contact is made with the organisation, until the final evaluation is complete, and all the steps in-between –was very limited, in both books and websites. As my research question was a question of meaning, understanding and process, rather than a question of facts and figures, the problem was appropriate for qualitative research (Merriam, 2002, p. 19). A qualitative approach was taken for each phase of this interview study –research design, data collection and data analysis –within the philosophical framework of interpretive inquiry. The data for this study came from interviews with four Process Work faculty members that identified as working with organisations –Lesli Mones, Max Schupbach, Julie Diamond and Stephen Schuitevoerder –that were conducted from September 2006 to March 2007. The interviews were semi-structured, and each participant was asked the following open ended questions, followed up by various probe questions. 1. What sort of work do you do with organisations? What is pOD? 146 a. What kind of organisations do you work with? b. What kind of problems do you work with? c. What's your role? (How is it defined from the client organisat i o n’ ss i d e , how do you define yourself? How would you describe the work you do?) d. How long does your work normally go for? 2. How would you define process-oriented OD? (If I read about it on a flyer, what would it say?) a. Is coming in for 1-2 days to work on a problem, organisational development? 3. What are the steps of process-oriented OD? What does it look like from the moment contact is made between you and the organisation and when you leave the project? The interviews were transcribed and Microsoft Excel was used to manage the data. The data was analysed using a generic approach to thematic analysis based on Tesch (1990), made up of the following three steps: 1. coding data, finding patterns, labeling themes and developing a category system; 2. convergence and divergence in coding and classifying; and 3. interpreting findings. What is pOD? 147 A quality evaluation of the study was performed, in which my role as a researcher, the s ou ndn e s soft h es t u dy ,e t h i c a lc o ns i de r a t i on sa ndt hes t udy ’ sl i mi t a t i on swe r edi s c u s s e d. My role as a researcher was explored, and my bias towards making this report highly structured in the way it is presented, was shown. Three traditional quality criteria – reliability, internal validity and external validity –were investigated. Ethical considerations including gaining informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity, data protection, dual role and intellectual property considerations were discussed. The limitations of this study were highlighted, the most significant of which being that there were only four participants in the study. Others included the participant selection method, the limited amount of time available to devote to this study, the age of the data, my lack of experience as a qualitative researcher and the complications of interviewing people more senior to me in terms of Process Work knowledge and expertise. The findings of this study were ba s e dont hepa r t i c i pa n t ’ svi e wsoft h et o pi c svi at h e i r answers to the interview questions, which I represented as accurately as I could. The scope of the study was broad and as a result the findings only covered most areas relatively lightly. ‘ I de a sBe hi ndp OD’ , the first of the findings chapters, d e f i n e dpODi nan ut s he l la s“ t h e application of Process Work and more specifically, Worldwork, to the field of organisational development. It identifies and brings awareness to the process of the or g a ni s a t i o na ndf a c i l i t a t e st heu nf ol di ngoft ha tpr oc e s s ” .I tt he nout l i ne dt he Worldwork concepts discussed by the participants: organisations as a living organism, process structure of organisations, field, roles and ghost roles, deep democracy and eldership, rank and power, levels of work and myths. What is pOD? 148 Wor l dwor kt ool swe r et he nde s c r i be d,i n c l u di ngma p pi ngt heor g a ni s a t i on’ spr oc e s s structure, taking a structural viewpoint on issues, and techniques for unfolding the or g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s s . ‘ Appl i c a t i onsofpOD’de s c r i be dthe types of organisations and issues participants work with. The four participants have worked as practitioners of pOD in a wide range of organisations, including governmental, non-governmental, for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. Communication issues, issues around power and rank and dealing with strategic changes were the most common examples of problems participants named when talking about the kinds of problems they work with in organisations. ‘ pODi nPr a c t i c e ’pr e s e nt e dt h ef i nd i ng si nr e l a t i ont ot hepr a c t i c eof pOD. It proposed that there are four iterative phases of activity that occur when working with an organisation. I identified these four pOD Phases as: engaging with the organisation, ma p pi ngt heor g a ni s a t i o n’ spr oc e s s ,pl a n ni nga n di mp l e me nt i ngt hec ha ng epr o c e s sa nd assessing and integrating the changes. Interventions that were implemented as part of the third phase included organisational interventions, interpersonal interventions and personal interventions. Based on all of these findings, the following pOD model was proposed. This model suggested that pOD is made up of two main elements –the first was Worldwork, the philosophy in the background of pOD. This provided the concepts and the tools that the OD practitioner draws upon in their work with organisations. The second is what I called the pOD Practice, the phases of applying Worldwork to the process of working with an What is pOD? 149 organisation, from the first moment of contact with the organisation until the work is complete, and included the interventions implemented as part of this process. pOD = Worldwork + pOD Practice Background philosophy Phases of working with an organisation Concepts pOD Phases - Organisations as living organism - Engaging with the organisation - Process structure of organisations - Ma ppi ngt h eor g a ni s a t i on ’ spr o c e s s - Field, roles and ghost roles - Planning and implementing the - Deep democracy and eldership - Rank and power - Levels of work - Myths change process - Assessing and integrating the changes Tools Interventions - Ma ppi ngo r g ’ spr oc e s ss t r uc t u r e - Personal (eg coaching) - Structural viewpoint on issues - Interpersonal (eg conflict resolution) - Unfolding techniques - Organisational (eg group process or - Relationship work tools - Individual work tools strategic development) Interventions form part of the third phase, - Inner work tools planning and implementing the change process. What is pOD? 150 This model provides a framework within which to organise existing and new knowledge about organisational development from a Process Work perspective. It makes it clear that there is a whole philosophy in the background of pOD, Worldwork, and a roadmap, the pOD Practice, that practitioners can use when working with organisations. It provides a simple overview of what pOD is, and a context within which the details of Worldwork knowledge can be placed. The model highlights the areas where the knowledge exists, and the areas where more knowledge is needed. Contribution to the Field Thi ss t u dypr ov i d e sa na ns we rt ot her e s e a r c hq ue s t i on, ‘ Wha ti so r g a ni s a t i on a l de v e l opme ntf r omaPr oc e s sWo r kpe r s pe c t i v e ? ’ ,aqu e s t i o nwhi c hha sno ty e tbe e na topic of systematic inquiry. Gap in Knowledge As the Literature Review shows, little theory and documentation exists about many aspects of the growing and developing area of process-oriented OD. This study begins to fill this gap, contributing to new learnings in the field of pOD by extending the theory of how to apply Worldwork to organisations and documenting that by way of this thesis. It is a first step of extended research in this area and identifies other areas where research and documentation are needed. What is pOD? 151 Importance of Knowledge Identifying a gap in knowledge is one thing, but as Merriam (2002) points out, filling a gap is in itself not a justification for doing such research. Why is it important to answer this research question (p. 19)? Here I make a case for the importance of this research. Contribution to the world. Organisations, and particularly large corporations, make a large impact on the world. They do this both internally, in the atmosphere and opportunities they create for their employees, and externally, in their interaction with society, their influence on governments and their effect on the physical environment. Any work which contributes positively to how these organisations function is important and a contribution to the world. Process Work has an enormous amount to contribute to how these organisations operate, and one of the ways it already does this and will hopefully do this more, is through OD consultants understanding and employing the philosophies and methods of pOD in their work. This study contributes to the conceptual and practical knowledge base of pOD. Contribution to pOD consultants. Providing information about what pOD is, where, when and how it can be applied is useful to Process Workers wanting to consult to organisations. It is particularly useful to those people who do not have a background as OD consultants, who require an overview about how to apply their existing knowledge about Process Work and Worldwork to working with organisations. Existing OD consultants, who have their own framework in place for how they work with organisations, may be more excited by the existing Worldwork theory, which this study What is pOD? 152 only briefly covers. This study may, however, contribute to their understanding of how to apply and integrate the Worldwork philosophies and practices into their existing work. Making public the work that the four participants of this study are doing in the world is exciting and encouraging for anyone interested in pOD. Contribution to MACFOC. This study may also contribute to curriculum development and teaching content for future MACFOC programmes. It could do this in a number of ways. First, my study highlights and explores the areas of the application of Worldwork to organisations that I, as a student, did not grasp sufficiently during my MACFOC studies prior to this research. Secondly, it investigates and documents developing aspects of pOD concepts and practice, which may be added to the curriculum. Thirdly, it offers a model which could potentially be used to frame the theory as applied to working with organisations. Contribution to Process Work credibility. Process Work itself benefits from this study through the choice of qualitative research as the research method. Qualitative research is an accepted form of academic research, and thus is accepted in the wider research c ommuni t ya sa ne s t a bl i s he da ndva l i dme t ho d.“ We l l -r e s e a r c he dpr o j e c t s ”s a y sJ one s ( 20 06, p.1 6) ,“ a d dt ot h ea c a de mi ca n dpr of e s s i ona lc r e di bi l i t yofPr oc e s sWor k ,a n d help to devel opa n ds ubs t a n t i a t ei t st he o r ya ndpr a c t i c e ” . The detailed description of the methodology and my analysis process included in Appendix D may help future Process Work students performing qualitative analysis. What is pOD? 153 Suggestions for Future Research This study is a first step, an early step, in the process of defining process-oriented organisational development. It is a broad ranging study and builds on the existing Worldwork and Process Work knowledge and extends the theory into some new areas. In doing so, it highlights exciting areas where further research is required. My proposition of pOD Phases is one such area –the phases I propose need to be confirmed or developed further. One way of doing this would be to collect multiple case studies and analyse them for commonalities in these or other, yet to be identified phases. This research alone could become a book! Another area is exploring what is meant by pOD coaching –how to apply Process Wor k’ st h e or ya n ds k i l l si nt ot hi si nc r e a s i ng l ypo pul a ra r e aofor g a n i sational work. What makes a coaching session different from a Process Work individual therapy session? What extra knowledge or skills are needed for people with a Process Work background to work as coaches? Evaluating the effectiveness of pOD would be another topic of valuable research –an example might be to take a few relatively simple Process Work exercises into organisations, and measure the results of the impacts on individuals –existing psychological measures could be used to determine changes in t hei nd i v i dua l ’ swe l l b e i ng and effectiveness at work, including their relationships with others. Or along the same lines, a study that held regular group processes with a team over a period of six months could track similar measures for each of the team members. Both studies could be What is pOD? 154 conducted quantitatively, thereby making a contribution to the professional credibility of pOD, and putting it on the OD map. Repeating this study and interviewing the same people again, would yield very interesting results about how pOD is developing. Likewise, a similar study interviewing other people who identify as pOD practitioners would show how applicable this study is to the general field of pOD. Interviewing Arnold Mindell, the founder of Process Work about this topic would be fascinating. Setting pOD in the context of the broader OD field would be another significant contribution to the field of pOD and to Process Work, in that it would enable practitioners of pOD to converse with general OD practitioners with some understanding of the general OD field. Additionally, it would enable pOD practitioners to understand the particular strengths of pOD in the general OD field, and position and market themselves accordingly to organisations. I begin this process in Appendix F, where I recategorise the problems and issues and interventions discussed in this study using general OD categories. The topic of the study was extensive, and as such most of the areas were touched upon relatively lightly. Any research which deepens any of the elements of this study –the tools, the interventions or the pOD Phases –would make a significant contribution to pOD, OD and the world. I will finish with two quotes from the interviews, which talk about the power of pOD, and the excitement with which it is being received. The first is from Schuitevoerder, speaking about his work with existing OD practitioners: What is pOD? 155 They are unbelievably excited. Because they feel they are getting a tool which is so vital. And so many of them need it. So I thinkwe ’ vej us tg otar e ma r ka b l e t oolt he r e ,wh i c hi sr e a l l yj us ta tt hebe g i n ni ngofc r e a t i on .AndI ’ mve r ye xc i t e d t os e ehowweg oi ni t , ove rt hene xt2 0,3 0y e a r s .It hi nki t ’ sg o i ngt obe remarkable actually. The second comes from the interview with Schupbach: There are so many opportunities out there. There are so many opportunities out there. And everybody I meet is dying to learn more about it, and to get more involved, and to use it more. What is pOD? 156 REFERENCES Block, P. (2000). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used. (2nd ed.) New York: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Chenail, R. J. (1994). Qualitative research and clinical work: "Private-ization" and "Public-ation". The Qualitative Report [On-line journal], 2(1), 1, 3-13. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/BackIssues/QR21/private.html Chenail, R. J. (1995). Presenting qualitative data. The Qualitative Report, 2 (3, Dec). Retrieved August 17, 2007, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR23/presenting.html DDI, (2007). Deep democracy explained. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.deepdemocracyinstitute.org/section/05%20what%20is%20ddi/ Deming, W. E. (1993). Out of the crisis. Massachusetts: MIT. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. London: Routledge. Diamond, J. (n.d.a). Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.juliediamond.net/about_julie.php Diamond, J. (n.d.b). WorldWork –Conflict resolution, facilitation, and group and organisational growth. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.juliediamond.net/process_work.php What is pOD? 157 Diamond, J., & Jones L.S. (2004). A path made by walking: Process work in practice. Portland, OR: Lao Tse Press. Dworkin, J. (2006). Interventions levels for relationship work - handout. MACF Lecture, March, 2006: Process Work Institute Dworkin, J., & Menken, D. (2006, April) The powers that be and the powers that are: Exploring the fluid nature of rank. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.worldwork.org/Day-4-Jan-Dawn.pdf Elden, M., & Chisholm, R. (1993). Emerging varieties of action research: introduction to the special issue. Human Relations, 46:2: 473-80. Encarta. (2007). Retrieved November 8, 2007, from http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/organisation.html, 8/11/07), Goodbread, J. (2004a). Introduction to the Process Oriented Paradigm –lecture notes. MACF Lecture, September 3, 2004: Process Work Institute Goodbread, J. (2004b). Process structures and how they express themselves on the levels of individuals, relationships and groups - handout.MACFCl a s son‘ I nt r odu c t i o n to aPr oc e s sOr i e nt e dPa r a di g m’ ,Se p t e mbe r4, 200 4:Pr oc e s sWor kI ns t i t u t e Jones, L. S. (2005). A guide to using qualitative methods in process work research. Unpublished manuscript. Jones, L. S. (2006). Planning a final project: a guide for process work students. Unpublished manuscript. What is pOD? 158 Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row. Menken, D. (2004). Communication and interactional levels of awareness - handout. MACFCl a s son‘ Pr oc e s sAppr oa c ht oGr o ups , Conf l i c ta n dCh a ng e ’ ,Se ptember 12, 2004: Process Work Institute Menken, D. (2006). The different levels of focus of a group –lecture notes. MACF Lecture, March 6, 2006: Process Work Institute Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam-Webster. (2007). Retrieved October 10, 2007, from, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/isomorphic Mindell, Amy. (1999). Coma: A Healing Journey; A guide for family, friends, and helpers. Portland, OR: Lao Tse Press. Mindell, Amy. (2002b). Alternative to therapy. Newport, OR: Zero Publication. Mindell, Arnold. (1988). City shadows: Psychological interventions in psychiatry. New York: Routledge. Mindell, Arnold. (1989). The year I: Global process work with planetary tensions. New York: Penguin-Arkana. Mindell, Arnold. (1992). The leader as martial artist: An introduction to deep democracy. San Francisco: Harper Collins. What is pOD? 159 Mindell, Arnold. (1995). Sitting in the fire: Large group transformation through diversity and conflict. Portland, OR: Lao Tse Press. Mindell, Arnold. (2002a). The deep democracy of open forums: Practical steps to conflict prevention and resolution for the family, workplace, and world. Charlottesville,VA : Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc. Mindell, A., & Mindell, A. (2006a). Worldwork terms, concepts and skills. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from http://www.aamindell.net/worldwork-terms.html . Mindell, A., & Mindell, A. (2006b). Worldwork 2006. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://www.worldwork.org/Day-1-Arny-Amy.pdf Mones, L. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.processwork.org/therapylesli.htm Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Process Work Institute. (2006). Student Handbook: Master of arts in conflict facilitation and organisational change. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.processwork.org/MACF_Handbook2006.pdf Sanghera, B. (n.d.). Qualitative and quantitative research. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://uk.geocities.com/balihar_sanghera/ipsrmehrigiulqualitativequantitativeresea rch.html What is pOD? 160 Schuitevoerder, S. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://stephens.home.igc.org/index.html Schupbach, M. (2006a). Glossary. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.maxfxx.net/glossary.asp Schupbach, M. (2006b). Hello and welcome to maxfxx. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.maxfxx.net Schupbach, M. (2006c). Transformation in organisations, communities, business, and the public space –An introduction into the perspective, methodology and attitudes in worldwork. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.maxfxx.net/ov.pdf Schupbach, M. (2007). Worldwork - ein multidimensionales change management modell. OrganisationsEntwicklung Ausgabe4/2007, Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.maxfxx.net/my_publications/files/changemanagement%20schupbach.pdf Schupbach, M. (2006d). The trainer and facilitator. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.cleconsulting.com.au/QLF/max.html Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: The Falmer Press. The OWL at Purdue. (2007). APA formatting and style guide. Retrieved November 2, 2007 from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ What is pOD? 161 Tichy, N. (1974). Agents of planned change: congruence of values, cognitions and actions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19: 163-82. Waddell, D. M., Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2004). Organisation Development and Change. (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Thomson. Walker, R. (1980). The conduct of educational case studies: Ethics, theory and procedures. In W.B. Dockerell & D. Hamilton (Eds.), Rethinking educational research. London: Hodder & Stroughton. Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Wikipedia website. (2006). Process oriented psychology. Retrieved August 30, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Oriented_Psychology What is pOD? 162 APPENDICES Appendix A –Participant Background Information ................................................... 163 Lesli Mones............................................................................................................. 163 Max Schupbach....................................................................................................... 163 Julie Diamond ......................................................................................................... 164 Stephen Schuitevoerder .......................................................................................... 165 Appendix B –Interview Transcripts........................................................................... 166 Lesli Interview –26/9/06 ........................................................................................ 166 Max Interview –27/9/06......................................................................................... 177 Julie Interview –23/12/06 ...................................................................................... 181 Stephen Interview –7/4/07 ..................................................................................... 194 Appendix C –Te s c h ’ sGe n e r i cAp pr oa c ht oAna l y s i s............................................... 210 Appendix D –Data Analysis Details .......................................................................... 212 Analysis Phase 1 –Getting an Overview................................................................ 212 Analysis Phase 2 –Defining the Categories and Sub-Categories........................... 213 Analysis Phase 3 –Assigning Categories and Sub-Categories to Text Segments . 215 Analysis Phase 4 –As s e mb l i ngCa t e g or i e si n t o‘ Se c t i ons ’ .................................... 215 Analysis Phase 5 –Generation of Themes ............................................................. 216 Analysis Phase 6 –Preparing MACF Presentation................................................. 217 Analysis Phase 7 –Write Up .................................................................................. 217 Appendix E –Participant Consent Form .................................................................... 218 Appendix F –pOD in the Context of the General OD Field ...................................... 221 OD Interventions..................................................................................................... 221 An OD View of Issues ............................................................................................ 223 An OD View of Interventions................................................................................. 225 What is pOD? 163 Appendix A –Participant Background Information Lesli Mones Taken from http://www.processwork.org/therapylesli.htm. Lesli Mones, M.A., is a process-oriented therapist in private practice and an organizational consultant and executive coach. Her central focus is assisting individuals and teams to develop the self-awareness needed to embrace and capitalize on conflict and use it as a springboard to innovative solutions. She is especially interested in how awareness of rank and power dynamics can help individuals/teams to become more accountable and get the results they want. When the days are sunny and warm, Lesli loves riding her bike and gardening –she's also prone to having her nose is in a book trying to learn something new. Max Schupbach Taken from http://www.cleconsulting.com.au/QLF/max.html. Max Schupbach, Ph.D., Dipl.PW, CPF, is, along with Drs. Arnold and Amy Mindell, a co-founder of Process Work. He is the founder and president of Maxfxx, a consulting and coaching firm that is active on all continents, with clients including Fortune 100 companies, International NGOs, public sector organisations and political parties. He is the founder and president of the Deep Democracy Institute, an NGO that develops and implements leadership programs in the Middle East, Africa and South America. Max has developed and led change management projects and other organisational development initiatives for For t u ne100c ompa ni e s ,g ove r nme ntg r ou psa ndNGO’ so na l lc o nt i ne nt s . These initiatives include the reinvention of a U.S. organisation, a process that encompasses visioning, strategy development, and implementation. Max developed the subsequent change management program, including leadership training and coaching, large stakeholder group processes, the teaching and facilitation of community building practices, performance management approaches for improving productivity, communication and workflow, and goal-spe c i f i cpe e rc oa c hi ngt r a i ni ng .Ma x’ sa p pr oa c h always reflects the unique nature and process of the organisation with which he works. Max coaches individuals to understand and integrate the converging flow of the organisation's dynamics with her/his unique professional development. This results in career enhancement and greater capacity to achieve strategic input across hierarchical levels. He coaches leaders and teams from the worlds of business, NGOs, politics and government in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, South and North America. He is an Internationally acclaimed keynote speaker and lecturer and has taught in numerous universities and training centres. Max has developed and is currently running a leadership training for the West Bank in Palestine. In addition, he has developed and is presently implementing a Deep Democracy Leadership model for the relief efforts of a group of International NGOs servicing client communities in several African countries. He has a What is pOD? 164 vast range of facilitation experience in diverse settings: from Serb and Croat groups during the war in former Yugoslavia, to U.S. cities on racism, and most recently, public open forums in European cities on the topic of Muslims, Jews and Christians living together. Max brought Processwork to Australia in 1990 and has developed and led its training program. He has established Process Work training programs and centres in many countries, including Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the USA. He has also facilitated the development of diversity training in several large business firms in South Africa. Max Schupbach grew up in the Swiss Alps and today lives in Oregon, USA. Julie Diamond Taken from http://www.juliediamond.net/about_julie.php. Julie Diamond, Ph.D., a long-time colleague and student of Arnold Mindell, is one of the original founders of the Research Society for Process-oriented Psychology in Zurich, Switzerland, and the Process Work Center in Portland, Oregon. She is a principal coauthor of the international training program in Process Work, and designed both Master of Arts degree programs at the Process Work Institute Graduate School: the MA in Process Work, and the more recent MA in Conflict Facilitation and Organizational Change. Julie has been a central figure in developing learning centers for Process-oriented Psychology in Switzerland, North America, Australia and New Zealand. She has a private practice in Portland, Oregon where she works as a counselor, coach and consultant with individuals on personal and professional development. She also works as a facilitator and trainer with organizations and communities around the world, and is an international trainer in Process Work and its applications. J ul i e ’ swor ka sag r oupf a c i l i t a t ore nc omp a s s e sadi ve r s er a ng eoft o pi c sa nda p pl i c a t i o ns . She has worked with communities, organizations, and non-profit groups on leadership, team development, and creating sustainable structures of internal government. Recent projects include working with trade unions in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) on enterprise development and transitioning to democratic structures, training government agencies in conflict facilitation in New Zealand, and community building and conflict resolution for non-profit groups and communities in the United States. Julie has authored several important articles, books and papers on Process Work and related topics. She is the author, with Lee Spark Jones, of A Path Made by Walking: Process Work in Theory and Practice (2005), a comprehensive and widely-used text on Pr o c e s sWo r kt h e or ya ndme t h ods .J ul i e ’ sba c kg r o undi nc o mmuni c a t i ont h e or ya nd systems thinking is reflected in her writing on verbal and non-verbal communication, What is pOD? 165 group dynamics, power and democracy. Her first book, Status and Power in Verbal Interaction focused on power dynamics in group interaction using a network analysis of community. She has also applied her interest in power, rank and role theory to the issue ofdu a lr e l a t i ons h i p si nt hehe l p i ngpr of e s s i on s .Ar e c e n ta r t i c l e ,“ Whe r eRol e s ,Ra n ka nd Re l a t i o ns hi pMe e t , ”e xpl or e st het h e or e t i c a lba c k g r ou ndofdua la n dmul t i p l er ol e relationships from a Process Work perspective. Julie's interest in the dynamics of groups and organizations finds her thinking about the intersection of psychology and politics. She has written several articles on the psychology of democracy. Her article, A Democracy Dialogue: Getting to the Essence of Freedom, explor e showps y c hol ogy’ ss ub t l e s tr e a c he se xpa n dde moc r a c ybe y on df r e e domf r om constraint to the freedom of self-actualization. Julie is currently working on a new book, AUs e r ’ sGui d et oPowe r . Stephen Schuitevoerder Taken from http://stephens.home.igc.org/index.html. Dr Stephen Schuitevoerder is an international consultant, lecturer and facilitator based in Portland, Oregon. Stephen consults and presents seminars, lectures and workshops throughout the world including South Africa, Australia, Russia, Japan, Europe, South America, Mexico and the United States. He works with diversity issues, team building, executive development and organizational conflict and has worked with organizations in many diverse situations including facilitation for the United Nations to strategic consultations with corporate executives of both small and large corporations. Stephen is the President and a faculty member of the Process Work Institute. What is pOD? 166 Appendix B –Interview Transcripts Lesli Interview –26/9/06 HH: What kind of organizations do you work with? LM: A wide range of organizations –it has changed a lot over time. I started working with intentional communities, schools, healthcare and government organizations, and currently am working with a couple of Fortune 500 companies. HH: What kind of problems do you work with? LM: You know, it always seems to come down to difficult relationships between people, regardless of the context. The problems get constructed around relationship edges. Perhaps people have a hard time being direct with each other –it comes out in all s or t sofc ompl i c a t e di nt r i c a t ewa y s .It h i nkt ha t ’ sa l wa y st r ue–that all the issues g e tc on s t r u c t e da r ou ndpe o pl e ’ se dg e sa ndt he nbe c omeor g a ni z a t i ona ledges. And some, if they have a lot of money, can perhaps buy their way over their edges. You k n ow,y oudo n’ th a vet ode a lwi t hal oto ft her e a l l ydi f f i c ul ti s s ue sb e c a u s ey ouc a n afford to get rid of people, they can afford, in the short term, to somehow c ompe ns a t e .An di ns ma l lbu s i n e s s e sa ndc ommun i t i e s , t h e yc a n’ tr e a l l ybuyt he i r wa you ts oe a s i l y , t h i ng sa r emor eont hes u r f a c e .Butap l a c el i ke“ MNC” ,on eof t heFo r t u ne500or g a n i z a t i o nsI ’ mwor k i ngwi t hc u r r e n t l y ,pe o pl ea r ec on s t a n t l y changing roles and organizational structures are always being re-done as a way to try to manage relationship tensions –power struggles, issues of accountability, tensions between the US and offices in other regions. All organizations grapple with how to deal with power. It is an issue around community living –where there is no sort of designated leader. Also in corporations with a matrix structure, where hierarchy is marginalized. Hierarchy r e a l l yi s n ’ tpo pul a rt oda ye ve ni nt hemos tma i ns t r e a mofor g a n i z a t i o ns . People act as if there is no real boss –and thus all the power is marginalized. I think the essence of that really, is power, people are so edged out. They are afraid to congruently step in or out of their power. When power or rank does surface it is usually in ways that make it difficult for everyone to deal with—less tractable. Unt i lt hi sMNCwo r k ,e ve r y t hi ngI ’ ved onei st od e a lwi t ha ni mme di a t eorpr e s s i ng pr o bl e m.I t ’ sbe e na bo utac e r t a i ni s s uet ha t ’ sc omeup ,ac r i s i so fs o r t s , t h a tt he y feel t h e yne e dhe l pwi t h ,a ndI ’ v eg onei nt he r ef orawe e ke n d,o raf e wda y s ,or even one day, and kind of made a splash, gave a hand, did a group process and did a bi to fr e l a t i ons hi pwor k ,a ndt ha twa sk i n dofi t .I t ’ sk i n dofhe l pf u li nt h a ti ts hows patterns on the other side of their edge –but for me it is not really sustainable. Thet hi ngI ’ md oi ngdi f f e r e n ta tMNCi swor k i ngo nbui l di ngamo r es u s t a i n e d r e l a t i o ns hi p / p a r t n e r s hi p,t h a t ’ sg oi ngt obea bo utd oi ngo ng o i ngt r a i ni ngt os l owl y work on transformi ngt hec ul t ur e , mor ei n t e r na l l y .Soi t ’ sd i f f e r e nt… my What is pOD? 167 intentions are really different. Training people to do the work themselves –day to day. In the past it felt to me to be more like a performance, you go in once, you do something apparently magical, in that the skills seem out of the reach of the participants, and then you are out of there. So this is kind of a different thing. So that answers in terms of the role I see myself playing. I think my role now will primarily be around coaching, and facilitating, and beginning to introduce an educational process that people can really develop more participative, collaborative t e a ms .It h i nkt ha t ’ st heg oa l ,t hewa yt ode s c r i b ei t . HH: Do you see both types of work as OD? LM: Tha t ’ sa ni n t e r e s t i ngque s tion. In my more skeptical mood I would say no –I ’ ds a y wha tI ’ md oi ngno wi smor eor g a ni s a t i o na lde v e l opme n t , i nt h a ti tf o c us e sono ngoing development and learning. I would say that what I did before was more of a therapy session for an organization. If you think about the issue of development, to met ha t ’ ss ome t hi ngt ha tg e ne r a l l yh a ppe nsov e rt i me .Al t houg hal i t t l ehi tov e rt he head can work sometimes too. When I said therapy, I actually meant more like when somebody comes in for a one-time session .I t ’ si mpor t a n t .Yo uc a nha v ea big experience, I do a session with somebody that makes a big impact on them, but wha tdoe si tr e a l l yd o?Wha tdo e si tr e a l l yd oove rt i me ?Ma y bey ou ’ vet ouc h e d s ome t h i ngi ns ome bo dy .Ido n’ tr e a l l yk n ow.Doe si tc h a nge how they deal with conflict, does it change how they orient themselves around relationships, how effective they can be in the world? I would doubt it. It felt good! I like feeling good. HH: And they probably did too. LM: Buti t ’ saf e e l i ngi nt hemo me nt .Id on’ tt h i nkwer e a l l ya ddr e s st ha tde v e l opme n t issue in Process Work, in terms of how you really build and sustain a de v e l opme nt a lp r oc e s sov e rt i me .ButI ’ ms ur ee v e r y o nee l s ei sg o i ngt os a y something different. Because in a way, if you think that when you approach an organization, the first thing any organization is going to do is try protect itself from the new information. Fr omc ha ng e .Se e k i nghome os t a s i s . Th a t ’ sj us tna t ur a l ,as y s t e mi ct hi ng .Th a t ’ s t hef i r s tt hi ng , whe nt he r e ’ ss ome t hing new, that comes in –everybody has a tendency, at first, to protect. That protection looks many different ways. Right, it c ou l dl o okal oto fdi f f e r e n twa y sde pe n di ngont hec u l t u r e .Bu tt he r e ’ st ha t tendency to protect. And then something has to happen, where they can begin to t a kei nne wi nf or ma t i on ,s l owl ye xpa nda nde ve n t u a l l ye v ol ve .Butt he r e ’ sa de v e l opme nt a lp r oc e s st he r e .An dt h a td oe s n’ tha p pe ni non ed a y .Notr e a l l yi nt he wa yt ha tI ’ mi nt e r e s t e di n.Some t h i ngha pp e ns .ButIwo ul dn’ tne c e s s a r i l yc a l li t organisational development. But you know, everyone will have a different opinion on that. Everyone focuses on what interests them and each context calls for something different. HH: It sounds like most of your work, other than with MNC, were basically one offs, or went for a couple of days. LM: Yes. What is pOD? 168 HH: Did you check back with them, for a follow up, to see how they were going, for any of them? LM: No, a ndIt h i nkt ha twa sp a r t i a l l ymyown… n otr e a l l yha vi ngt ha ta sag oa l , a tt he time when I was working. I think I was happy, to go in and make a little splish s pl a s h .Ido n’ tt h i n kIr e a l l yt houg ht ,i nt e r msofwha t ’ sg oi ngt obemos te f f e c t i ve . Like what am I really being asked to do. Coming back to the what is OD question: Another organization I worked with, also ov e ral ong e rpe r i odoft i me ,wa sawome n ’ smi dwi f e r yc l i ni c .I twa saf e mi ni s t organization and it had heavy power struggles, nasty. Nasty power struggles, between the woman who was the doctor, who they had to hire because they needed a nMD, a nda l lt h el a ype op l e ,a nd… r e a l l yc ompl i c a t e d .Bu tIwor k e dwi t ht h e m over, probably a 6 month period or so. HH: On a semi regular basis? LM: I went down there like every other week. HH: So, would you call that more OD? LM: Ye a h ,Iwo ul ds a yt ha twa s .Cosf ormet he r ewa sr e a l l y…t h e ywoul dt r yt hi ng s , and I was able to come back, and see how they went. There was a process I was personally able to trace and engage with over time. I guess the question is, do you call it therapy when somebody comes in for one session? Is that therapy? You know, it depends totally on how you look at it, right? So ,i fy out a l ka bo utd e ve l op me nt ,o r g a ni z a t i on a ld e ve l op me nt ,i t ’ sni c et ob ea bl e t ot a l ka bou twha ti sd e ve l op i ng ,wha t ’ st hepr ocess? What are you supporting to unfold, and actually interact, you know, with that. HH: I t ’ sag r e a tdi s c u s s i o n.I t ’ snots ome t hi ngI ’ de ve nt houg hta bo utb e f or e .I t ’ ss or to f like time is going to be a really important factor, I think. Or it might be … LM: I t ’ sa l s oa ne t h i c a lt hi ng .Yout hi nka bo ut ,wha ta r ey o udoi nga sa no ut s i depe r s o n when you come in to an organization? Can changes that you point to and edges that you help people cross –are they able to sustain that over time, or are you just c omi ngi na nddo i ngs ome t hi ngk i n dofdr a ma t i c ?Andt he ny out hi nkok a y .I t ’ sa n ethical thing. HH:It hi nkwe ’ vena t u r a l l ymo ve di nt ot hes e c o ndqu e s t i o n… ho wwo ul dy oud e f i n e pr o c e s sor i e nt e dOD?An d,I ’ ma l s ot hi nk i ngi tmi g htb eg oo dt od ot h a tl a st, it mi g hta c t ua l l ybec l e a r e ron c ewe ’ vet a l k e da b outt h et h i r dq ue s t i on.So,Iha da t houg ht …i tmi g htb ee a s i e rf o rt hi st hi r dque s t i on ,i fy out hi nkofac a s es t udy ? LM: Sure. HH: Would that be easier? I was thinking about MNC, would that be good? So all the steps from when you first had contact. LM: Yes, I can tell you how it went. I had an ex-client who worked at MNC, who was ont hee xe c ut i vet e a m.Ba s i c a l l yhej us ts a i d,“ y ouk n owIh a veac oa c hwhoha s always done with me in business, what yo udi dwi t hmep e r s ona l l y ” .Whyd on’ t y ou… y o u’ dbeg r e a t .Sohei nt r odu c e dmet ot h eg uywh owa sh e a dofHR,who What is pOD? 169 he ’ db e e nwor k i ngwi t hf orma nyy e a r s .Thepr i ma r yt e a mhewa swor k i ngwi t h was having a lot of relationship issues. I went in and prepared a little presentation about how I look at the change process and look at conflict and look at rank. The first thing I did was to try to make rapport with him. Then I gave a very short presentation about how I work with problems –my viewpoint about problems, as an opportunity for learning. And conflict –how most people tend to sort of move away from conflict, because they a r es c a r e dofi t .Ore xpl odea n dma k emo r et r ou bl e .Tha tmos tpe op l edo n’ tk now how to use it, as a way to evolve and grow. And I introduced the idea that you r e a l l yc a n’ tk e e po utt r oubl e .Tha tpe op l et r yt oke e pi touta ndi te n dsupc o mi ng back in a more disturbing way. So that was sort of like the general, first meeting –a process-oriented viewpoint of conflict and the val ueofdi s t u r ba nc e s .I t ’ sahug epa r a d i g ms hi f tf ormos tpe op l e and it can be communicated very simply. Soweme tf ora bou ta nhour , a ndhes a i d ,“ wes houl dme e tf orl ong e r .Comeba c k ne xtwe e k ,l e t ’ st a k et woh our st og e t he r ” . HH: Oh! LM: So I went back the next week, and I was all excited and freaked out, and prepared a no t he rpr e s e n t a t i on .Al lwe e kl ongIpr e p a r e d… b utweba s i c a l l yj us tc on t i n ue d our chat. Pretty casual actually. Hewa st h ehe a doft heof f i c ei nEu r o pef orma nyy e a r s .He ’ sbe e nwi th MNC for 24 years. HH: Wow,t ha t ’ sal o ngt i me .I st ha tc ommon, j u s tbyt h eby ? LM: The r e ’ sal o tof‘ g o odol dboy s ’t h e r e .The r e ’ sawh ol ene t wor kofpe opl ewho have been there –a ndt he s eg uy sa r ei nt he r e4 0’ s–t h e y ’ veb e e nt he r es i nc et he i r 20 ’ s .Th e yha veb a s i c a l l yde ve l o pe dt he i rwhol ec a r e e ra tMNC.I t ’ sat ot a l l y insular culture. HH: Sob a c kt ot he… LM: He had been at his current job for 6 months. HH: Oh, okay. So around for a long time, but just recently in that role. LM: He was kind of freaked out with his new position, the tensions on his team –being in the USA, which is the headquarters, and his new responsibilities. Then this who l epr o c e s sbe g a nwhe r e , f oray e a rnow,ofl e t ’ sdot hi s ,l e t ’ sd ot ha t ,l e t ’ sd o this. I would preparema j o rp r e s e nt a t i onsa n dber e a dyt ot r a ve la c r os st hewor l d… t he nt he ywo ul df a l lt hr oug h.Cha ng eofpl a n s… c ha ng eofor g a n i z a t i o na l s t r uc t ur e… c ha ng eo fl e a de r s hi p.Fi r s th eh a da l lt he s eg r a ndi o s ei d e a st h a tIwoul d come and facilitate. But then we realized the need to meet with everybody. To get a more accurate picture. So then I met with everybody on the leadership team and the one tier under them. So I did all these one-on-one interviews, and small group interviews and just tried to sense the field, and talk to many people, basically about What is pOD? 170 the same things around how relationships work, how things get done, how people deal with conflict. HH: Did you have like a fairly standard set of question that you asked, so you covered t hes a meg r o und …? LM: Yes, I did. HH: Purposely? LM: Yes. HH: Soy oue s s e nt i a l l ypr e pa r e dy o ur s e l f … LM: Yes, I did. LM: Then I wrote up each interview after I finished. After I finished all the interviews, I synthesized together all the information and put together a report –what was working well, what were the challenges and gave that report to my client. HH: How many people did you interview? LM: I probably interviewed about 30 people. HH: Wow. HH: Did it get boring after a while or was it totally fascinating? LM: Tha t ’ sag r e a tq ue s t i on.Whe ni tg e t sbor i ngt h a t ’ sg o odbe c a us ey o uunde r s t a ndt he s t r uc t ur et hr oug ht her e du nda n c e .Sowhe ny o us t a r tt og e tbor e dy out hi nk ,‘ oka y , Ig e ti tnow’ .Tha ts t a r t e dt oha ppe na tac e r t a i npo i n ta n dIt houg ht , ‘ oka y ,Ig e ti t ’ . Basic a l l ye ve r y b odyi ss a y i ngt h es a met h i ng ,a ndt ha ti sg o od.I t ’ sa ni ndi c a t i on t ha tI ’ db e e na b l et of i g ur eou twha tt hepr oc e s swa sa b out . So then, after all the information was synthesized, there were going to be a couple of different situations where we were going to get together and we were going to present our findings to the leadership team. However, once again, it fell through at the last minute. I thought I was going to lose my mind. Finally, what I did was make a powerpoint presentation, and we gave it to the guy in HR, our client. He presented some of the findings to the leadership team . As kind of a taste as to what would come when we met with them next time they got together. He was a bridge of sorts. HH: In the presentation, you synthesiz e ds omeo ft hei s s ue sy o u’ ds e e na ndg a v es ome suggestions about where to go from here, or was it basically this is what I see? LM: Basically this is what I see. HH: Right. LM: Thi si swha tIs e e… i ts or to fi mpl i e ddi f f e r e n tpos s i b i l i t i e s ,Ime a nweg a ve the HR guy suggestions about how to go on, but not any of those to the leadership team. HH: Butt h e ys or to f ,I ’ mi ma g i ni ng , s ome h owf e l loutoft h ef i n di ng s ? LM: Exa c t l y ,i t ’ ss or tofob vi ous ,r i g ht ? What is pOD? 171 HH: Whydi dn’ ty ouc omeupwi t hmor ef or ma ls ugg e s t i o ns in the presentation? LM: Because it was a meeting about a bunch of other things and the idea of this presentation, giving the findings, was to just to prepare for a meeting we were going to be going to, in Hong Kong, about a month later. HH: Right. Ands oi twa smo r el i ke ,‘ t h i si swha tt h e yf oun d,a n dt h e ya r eg o i ngt oc omea nd t a l kt oy oua b outi t ’ .Butwed i d n’ tg e tt o. HH: Whe ny o us y nt he s i z e dy ou rr e p or t ,wa st ha tawr i t t e n…? LM: Yes. HH: Did that have recommendations, or again, that was the same –this is what I found, f ul ls t op ,no ta n dt h i si swha tIs ug g e s twe ’ l lg o… LM: Yes, we said, this is what we found and this is what we suggest, this is what a programme could look like, that would address that. HH: In the written document? LM: In the written document. HH: And then the presentation was just, this is what we found. LM: Yeah, basically, with some sort of learning points about conflict and teams and collaborations. Soi t ’ sbe e nay e a ro fp r e pa r a t i oni nawa y .Youk nowwi t hp e op l ea tthis level, you c a n ’ t“ t e a c h”a tt he m.I t ’ sr e a l l ya bou ts a y i ngwha t ’ si mp or t a nta ndbe i ngr e a l l y c l e a r ,a ndbe i nga bl et oma t c ht he i rpr i ma r ypr o c e s s… MNCs e e st he ms e l v e sa st h e most innovative company on the planet –number one, the best –and these are the people at the top of the company. They have a very particular idea about who they are and what they want to be reflected. HH: Andwha t ’ sha p pe n i ngi nLA? LM: I t ’ same e t i ngt ha tt he ya r eha vi ng–they are just in a midst of a re-orginisation, and s ot het e a mt ha ti sc on s i de r e dt hel e a de r s hi pi sc h a ng i ngi t ’ sc onf i g u r a t i o nal i t t l e bi t .Andt hi sha sc ha ng e dh owr e s our c e sh a vebe e na l l o c a t e d,a ndt he r e ’ sal oto f di f f e r e ntt e ns i ona r o undt ha t .Tha t ’ soneo ft her e a s o nsf ort h eme e t i ng .The y know that they need to be more collaborative. Because now the structure, the way i t ’ ss e tupno w,i sl e s sc o l l a b or a t i v e ,a n dmor ec e nt r a l i z e d .Bu tt he yk nowt he y ne e dt owo r kmor ec ol l a bo r a t i ve l y ,be c a us eoft hef a c tt h a ti t ’ sa c t ua l l yamo r e centralized structure. HH: Are you going in as a facilitator? LM: We ’ r eg oi ngt obedo i ngapr e s e nt a t i ono fwha twef oun d,a n dt he nwea r eg oi ngt o be facilitating. HH:… f o r ? LM: Two days. Two days at that level –t h a t ’ sal otoft i me , wi t ht he m.Ou rc l i e nt ’ s going to he l p,s owewon’ tbeu pt h e r ea l one .It hi nkt het hi ngf ormei s ,on c ewe What is pOD? 172 g e tove rt hee dg e ,I ’ l lb ef i n e .Onc ewer e l a x.Butbr e a k i ngt h ei c ei sa l wa y s… difficult. AndIa l s odon ’ tk n owwha tt owe a r . HH: I t ’ sabi gt hi ng . LM: I t ’ shug e ! HH: I saw a fashion consultant. She took me shopping, showed me how to put on makeup ,g a vemeaha i rc u t .Be c a us eIj u s tdi d n’ twa ntt owor r ya bo uth owIwa s looking. LM: Smart. HH: And I spent a lot of money, and she said this is what you need to wear. LM: What do you have? HH: Well, she helped me with my colours and things. So I described to her the kind of organization I worked with, and so we worked out where to pitch it, in terms of how business-like or how casual and where in between. Then she just took me by the hand and went shopping. And it was like, somewhere in-between. LM: I t ’ si nt e r e s t i ng , be c a us ea tMNCp e opl ec omed r e s s e dpr e t t yc a s ua l l y ,bu t… HH: Notr e a l l y ?Asi nt h e r e ’ sal i t t l et a s t eo f…? LM: We l l ,It hi nkt he r e ’ sj us ta ne xp e c t a t i o nt ha ti fyou are a consultant, that you are not wor k i nga tMNC, s owh a tt h e ywa ntt os e e ,i ns ome b odywh o’ sac ons u l t a n t , i s di f f e r e ntt ha nwha tt he ywa n tt os e ei nt h e ms e l ve s .The ydon ’ twa ntt os e e t he ms e l v e s ,bu tt he yd on’ twa ntt os e es ome t hi ngt oof a ra wa yf rom themselves. So i t ’ sa b outpa c i ngt hep r i ma r ypr oc e s s , a ndn otma t c hi ngi ts oe xa c t l y .The yf e e ll i k e i fy ou’ r ee xa c t l yl i kemet he nIha ven ot hi ngt ol e a r nf r om y ou .Ri g ht ? Somyh i g hdr e a ma b outwhe r et ha tg oe si st h a ti t ’ sas l owc ul t ur ec ha ng eover time, in terms of how people relate to each other. How teams work together. We have offered them a package: facilitated meetings (so that we would be there to facilitate), on-line learning, coaching and a learning lab. And the learning lab is something that would really be about a stress free environment where people can practice working with double signals, practice dealing with their own edges around picking up different things, dealing with rank stuff. Really where they are there to learn. And that ’ snotr e a l l yg oi ngt obepe opl ea tt h i sl e ve l , t h e ya r eno tg o i ngt od o anything like that, but people lower down the food chain might. These guys will do coaching, basically and facilitated meetings. HH: How come you say that with that certainty? LM: I know that from talking to our client, and who they seem to be. They not going go t og ol e a r ni na ne nv i r o nme n tl i k et h a t .Be c a us et he ya l s odon ’ twa ntt ol oos ef a c e . They would do one-on-one. They would not do any other kind. Plus they also do n’ th a ve the time. These guys are scheduled back to back-da ya f t e rda y…Ime a n What is pOD? 173 Is pok et omyc l i e ntl a s tn i g ht ,8o’ c l oc ka tn i g ht .Af t e rhi sc omp l e t e ,f ul ld a yof work starting at 6. They work really hard, they are traveling constantly. HH: Eve r y t hi ngy ou’ v ejust said, is that pacing their primary process? LM: Compl e t e l y .Yo uha vet of i ndt hedo or wa yi n… t hewa yt he yc a nl e a r n. One overall point –i t ’ sah ug et hi ngi na nor g a ni z a t i on, t of i g ur eoutwha ti st he i r primary culture and what do they identify with, and where is their sort of more mythic and dreaming process. And what it really means, and what that looks like to help guide an organization into their more marginalized, dreaming, mythic parts – i t ’ sadi f f e r e ntt h i ngt owor k i ngwi t ha ni n di vi du a lwh o is signing up for that. It would be a rare –Ik no wMNCwou l d n’ tc ons c i ou s l ys i g nupf ort ha t .Ma y bes ome more alternative organizations would. They just want to know, how can we be more effective? How do we make more money? How do we be competitive? How dowek e e pourc ompe t i t i vea d va n t a g e ?I fy o udon ’ ta dd r e s st h a ts t r a i g h ton — y ou’ r eout t at h e r e . The ya r el i kenumbe ro ne , i t ’ sba di ft h e ys l i pt onu mbe rt wo,a n dt h e ya r es l i p pi ng . So, you have to frame so much from the perspective of the primary experience, like y ouc a n’ tma k et hec ompe t i t i ong oa wa y .Ho wd oy ouu s ei t ?Ho wd ous et he things that you are afraid of, and that are disturbing your intention as a business, to actually evolve, as opposed to getting more and more tight, and fear based? How do you use the disturbances in the field as information that will help you become mor ef l e xi bl ea ndmo r eni mbl e ?An dt ha t ’ sr e a l l ywha tIs e et heo ve r a l lg oa lbe i ng . Andt ha t ’ st ot a l l yac h a ng ei nt hi nk i ng ,t oamor es y s t e mi ck i ndo ft hi nk i ng , f o r pe o pl e ,r a t h e rt ha nj u s tt hi s ,‘ i fwep us hha r de n oug h…’ .Tha t ’ sr e a l l ymyg oa l . HH: Andt hewa yt ha tt hea c t ua lpr oc e s s e sa r eunf o l d i ng ,s o und sl i kei t ’ sv e r ymuc hi n t hemome nt .Th i si sg oi ngt oha p pe n ,t he ni td i d n’ t .Soi t ’ sn otr e a l l yl i kehowt o g e tf r omat ob ,i t ’ si nt hemome n t . LM: Completely. How I see all of that is what I talked about, in terms of protection. Is this going to be a good place? Is everybody on board? Because the man who is the bo s so ft hi st e a m,i snoti nt ot h i swor k… he ’ ss c a r e d .Soe v e r y t hi ngi sa bou t po l i t i c k i ng .I t ’ sc r uc i a lhowy o uf r a met h i ng s .Ce n t r a l .Soourc l i e nth a sr e a l l yha d to make relationships with a lot of people, and get really comfortable with us. At one point, he was trying to make one more plan. Is a i d,“ Ic a n ’ tma k eonemor e pl a nwi t hy ou .Th eb ot t omk e e p sf a l l i ngou tc o ns t a nt l y ,l i k e , wha tt h eh e l l ? ” Fi na l l yhewa sa b l et os a y ,“ Ir e a l l yd on’ tk nowhowt ot a l ka bo uti twi t hot h e r pe o pl e ” .Soi twa sg r e a tt obea bl et og oba c ki nt ot h a t ,a ndh e lp him. You know, you really have to work with the person who you are facing, because they will reflect the edges of the organization. He would get really excited in the moment, bu tt he nh ec oul dn ’ tr e a l l yt u r na r oun da ndf o r mu l a t ei ta ndt a l ka bo uti twith people. I think after that happened things started moving. In my own excitement a nda mbi t i o nIdi d n’ tr e a l l yr e a l i z ea l lofhi se dg e s .Onepa r tofhi mwa sr e a l l y wa nt i ngt odot hi s ,b uta not h e rp a r twa sr e a l l ys c a r e d.Hedi d n’ tk nowhewa s scared, hed i d n’ tk nowt ha thedi dn ’ tk nowh owt ot a l ka b outi t . What is pOD? 174 So ,y o uc a non l yl o oka t‘ wh a th a ppe ns ’–wh a tpe op l e ’ sf e e tdo.Hek e e ps dropping the ball –oka y ,b uth e ’ snotdr opp i ngus ,butheke e psdr opp i ngt heba l l . Sowh a t ’ sg oi ngon ? To be able to be r e a l l ydi r e c ti na ne n vi r onme ntwh e r epe op l ea r e n’ t ,i st ou g h.I n myl a s tc onv e r s a t i o n,It houg htt h a t ’ st hee n d,h e ’ sg oi ngt obed onewi t hme ,c o sI was sooo pushy. But it was fine. HH: Andi nt e r msoft h ep r oc e s st ha t ’ se vol v e df r o mf i r s tc ont a c tt onow. How have you known what to do? This is the first step, second step, third step, and this needs to happen now. LM: I think one of my biggest learnings was about not taking things personally. When I was taking things personally, I felt like I really d i dn’ tk no wwha tt odo, be c a us eI felt really rejected, and was just swimming around in my own stuff. Therefore I c ou l dn’ ts e et h eb i gg e rs t r uc t ur eofwha twa sg oi ngo n,a n dc ou l d n’ tu s emy reactions for the sake of the client. I was positively hypnotized. Looking at the bi g g e rs t r uc t u r e ,i twa se a s i e rt ok no wwh a tt odo .Hes a i dh e ’ dc a l lmeba c ki n5 mi nut e s , a nd2h our sl a t e r ,i t ’ st hee ndo ft heda y ,a ndheha s n’ tc a l l e d–i t ’ sn ot hi ng to do with me. For me that was such an outrageous thing. And realizing that helped me to sort out what to do. Does that make sense? Not knowing what to do, t ome ,i sk i ndofl i keade f e ns e .Co nf us i oni sk i ndo fade f e ns e .“ I ’ mc onf us e d ,I do n’ tk nowwha tt od o. ”I t ’ sbe c a u s ei fy o ua r et a k i ngi tpe r s o na l l y ,y ouare pr o t e c t i ngy our s e l f .Sowhe nI ’ mnoti nt h a ts t a t eIc a ns e emor ec l e a r l ywha tt h e next step would be. HH: So the thing you did, when you were able to see process of the whole organization wa s…? LM: Whe nIt o okmy s e l fou tofi t , Is a wt he r e ’ st hi swh ole thing where people are, as they like to say, passive aggressive –they say one thing and do another, they are not accountable –b e c a u s et he yha v eah a r dt i mebe i ngdi r e c t .Th a t ’ swha tIf oun di na l l my research –t h a t ’ st r uea b outhi m.He ’ sa f r a i dt obed i r e c t .Pe op l ea r e n’ tdi r e c t , t he ya r epo l i t i c a l .SoIt he nc r o s s e dt hee dg e ,a n dIr e a l i z e dIwa s n’ tbe i ngd i r e c t ,I was being like a real schmuck, you know, so when I could be direct and say what needed to be said, my client was sort of able to meet me more. So when I went over my… c osy oug e tc a ug hti nt h ec ul t ur eoft h ef i e l d.Dr e a mtup .I fy o ut a ke y our s e l fo uto ft hewa y ,whi c hs o me t i me si sr e a l l yh a r dt odo, a ndy o udon’ tt a kei t personally, you can be more effective. You can use your reactions as diagnostic. HH: Ia mi nt e r e s t e di nt hepr oc e s sofOD.So, f ore xa mp l e ,y ou ’ vea l r e a dys a i d ,i t ’ s mos t l yunf o l de di nt hemome n t ,y ou[ i na udi bl e ]t hepr oc e s sa ndt he nt r a c ki t… LM: Id on’ tk nowi ft h a t ’ sa l wa y st r ue .I nt hi sc a s ei ts e e mst ob et r ue .Ido n’ tk nowi fi t wou l db et r uei fIdi di ta l love ra g a i n.I ’ ml e a r n i ng… It h i nkpa r t i a l l ybe c a u s eo f the mystique of it being such a huge, well-known organization, and having got in so hi g hu pi nt h eo r g a ni z a t i on ,i t ’ spu tmepa r t i a l l yi nat r a nc e .I t ’ sbe e nha r dt o strategise as well, as I might be able to do in another situation, or take more risks, be c a us eofmyownn e e ds .I ’ vewa l k e dmor eg i ng e r l y .SoIt h i nks ome t i me s , i na wa yIf e e ll i keI ’ vebe e nl e da r oun dbyt heno s e ,c o sI ’ veb e e nwi l l i ngt o.Iha v e n’ t What is pOD? 175 be e na bl et os a y ,“ y ouk nowwha t ,y oudon otc ommun i c a t ewe l le no ug h .I tha st o c ha ng ef orust owor kt og e t he r ” .Butb e c a u s eoft ha t , I ’ v ea l s ohungi n ,a ndi t ’ s been interesting. The thing about being led from moment to moment, i spa r t i a l l ymyo wn… Id on’ t k n owt h a tt ha t ’ st heODp r o c e s s .It hi nkt ha t ’ sbe e nt heLe s l iMone sa n dMNC process. HH: Andy out hi nkt ha ti fy o uwe r et od oi ta g a i n…? LM: It h i nkI ’ db ebol de r .It hi nkhewo ul ds a y“ c omet oLA” ,a f t e rId on’ tk now anybodya ndIha r d l yk nowhi ma ndI ’ ds a y ,“ noIdo n’ tt hi n ki t ’ sg oi ngt owor k , l e t ’ sn otg ot h e r e .Youdon’ tf e e ls a f ee n oug hwi t ht hi sy e t ,Idon ’ tf e e ls a f e e no ug h .Le t ’ sj us twa i t ,t hi si swh a twene e dt od of i r s t ” .I ’ dbemor ed i r e c t i v e . Id i dn’ tk no w!I ’ vene ve rb e e ni nac ompa nyl i k et h a t .I ’ v ej u s tbe e nr e a c t i ng , responding. You want me to do that? Okay. You want me to do this proposal? Oka y .You’ r eg o i ngt op a ymef ori t ?Oka y , s ur eI ’ l ldoi t .SoIwa sab i tofl i k ea ‘ MNCs l u t ! HH: That whole ask/tell balance, is really complicated. You are the expert, but they also want you to do what they tell you to do. LM: I t ’ sar e a l l yc omp l i c a t e dt h i ng ,b e c a us ehes a i dt omef r omt hebe g i nni ng ,t e l lme wha tt odo,I ’ mc o a c ha b l e .He ’ ss a i dt ha ts omany times. And every time you tell him what to do, he does it. HH: Oh! LM: Hedoe sd oi t .But ,I ’ ven e ve rs a i dt ohi m,i t ’ sr e a l l ye s s e n t i a ly out a k eu so nt hi s t r i p( Le s l it hu mpshe rf i s tanumbe roft i me s ) ,i fy oud on’ tdoi t ,bl a h, bl a h, bl a h. I ’ vene ve rd onet ha twi t hh i m.He ’ sa l s oar e a l l ypo we r f u lma na ndar e a l l ys t r ong pe r s o na l i t y .I t ’ sa l s ol i k ey oug e t1 5mi n ut e swi t hhi m, a ndy o ua r er us hi ngt og e t a l lt hei nf o r ma t i on .Sot he r e ’ sa l wa y st hi sk i ndo fs t r e s s . Soy e s ,It hi nkt ha t ’ sab ig thing you point to there between being direct because y oua r eac ons u l t a n t , a ndt he ya r eh i r i ngy out oc oa c ht h e m,a ndy e t… HH: How explicit do you think that is? How explicit is your role, from that point of view? LM: I t ’ sno ts oe xpl i c i t .Exc e pt ,t ha twi t he v e r y bo dyi t ’ sdi f f e r e n t .I nawa yi t ’ sl i k ea n i nt i ma t er e l a t i on s hi pt h a t ’ sd e ve l op e dove ray e a r .I t ’ sno tr e a l l yi n t i ma t e ,buty o u k n ow,i t ’ say e a rl ongr e l a t i o ns hi p.It hi nkheh a swa nt e dmet obemor edi r e c tt h a n I ’ vebe e na bl et obe .Ithink if I was more experienced and I felt less afraid of fucking up, and less in awe of all the power, I would have been more direct. On the other hand, I think me being more amenable, has kept me in the saddle. HH: I need to move us to the second question. How do you define poOD? If you had to write a flyer about it, what would it say? LM:Iwoul ds a yt ha ti t ’ st hepr o c e s sofwor k i ngwi t ha nor g a ni z a t i o nwhe r ey o ul o oka t their strengths and what they do well, and that you also look at the things that disturb them, and take them away from their intention. And based on their culture What is pOD? 176 and what they are willing to go along with, you find ways to help them integrate the things that disturb them, so they can be a more resilient organization. HH: Wow! That s oun dsg r e a t !Andt ha t ’ sl i k ea tac o nc e p t u a ll e v e l ,s ome h ow.I fy ou were to take it down in terms of some of the applications, or something like that? LM: Ri g ht ,s ot het hi ngIr e a l l ynot i c ei st he yr e a l l yl i kek n owi ngwha tt h e ydowe l l .I t ’ s a deep thing where people are always told that they have to change what they are do i ng ,wh a tt he ya r ed oi ngi s n’ tqui t er i g h ta n dt h e yha vet od os ome t hi ngdi f f e r e nt . I think the more you can make the most of what people do well, the more successful y ou’ l lbe ,a ndt hemo r es u c c e s s f u lt he y ’ l lf e e l .Sou s i ngwha tt h e ydowe l l–for i ns t a nc e ,MNC’ st h i nga r ou ndbe i ngc ompe t i t i ve ,i swha tt h e ydowe l l .Soi na way, the metaskill of using the primary process to work on the secondary things, can be really useful. So this thing around competition, and their whole thing that, no matter what, they are innovators –so framing, for instance, the idea of deep de moc r a c y ,ore ve r y body ’ svoi c ebe i ngi n c l ude d,a st hemos ti nno va t i vet hi ngy o u can do, is the direction that you need to go with, them. I ’ mg oi ngt os a yi tal i t t l es i mpl y–Iwou l ddoi tl i k et h i s :“ Thenu mbe r sa r e showing that people are nipping at your heels, and to be really innovative, you need t odr a wont hewi s domofe ve r y bo dyi nt h i sg r o up.Some t i me st ha t ’ s not such an e a s yt hi ngt od o,c o spe op l ea r eapa i ni nt hea s s ,y oud on’ twa ntt ohe a rf r om pe o pl e ” .I t ’ ss ome howmo de l i ngf ort he m, t ha tb yl i s t e ni ngt oa l lt h ed i f f e r e n t voices –this is just an example –they will be able to capture something innovative t ha tt h e ywe r e n’ ta bl et og e tt ob e f or e .Orma y bed i d n’ tn e e dt oe ve ng e tt obe f or e , when they were just number one. Using the primary process to really motivate them around secondary stuff. What is pOD? 177 Max Interview –27/9/06 The transcript of the interview with Max comprises of the data exemplars included in the study and my questions/comments leading to his answers. ***** HH: Sot h e r ea r et het hr e ema i nq ue s t i ons .On ei s‘ wha ti st het y peofwor ky oudowi t h or g a ni s a t i o ns ’ ,t hes e c ond‘ i showwou l dy oude f i n ep r oc e s sor i e nt e dOD? ’ , a ndt he t hi r donei s‘ wh a ta r et hes t e p so fpr o c e s sor i e nt e dOD?Wha tdo e si tl o okl i k ef r om the moment contact is made between you and the organization and when you leave t hepr oj e c t ? ’ MS: Let me ask you something. Do you mind? Why these questions? What's the rational behind the questions? HH: I came up with a whole list of questions, things I'd like to find out about, and had to narrow it down to something I thought would take an hour, for the interview. MS: I understand, but why, I mean in addition to the things you say? If I would make a s t udyo ni n t i ma t er e l a t i ons h i p s ,myf i r s tqu e s t i onwoul db e ,“ wha ti sy ourf i r s t e xpe r i e nc ewhe ny our e l a t et os ome o ne ,t hi n k i nga bo uta ni n t i ma t er e l a t i ons h i p ? ” Behind that would stillb et hepa r a di g m,t h a tf i r s tmome nt sc oun t , a ndt ha t ’ swha tI am researching. Do you know what I mean? ***** MS: I ’ mf a c i l i t a t i ngt h et h r e eda y soft her e t r e a t–I ’ v ed e ve l o pe dapr oc e s s -oriented strategy development model, that I am using. It also starts out with preparation for where they really want to go and who the stakeholders are. Usually the CFO gives ar e po r t ,s oI ’ l ls i twi t ht h eCFOt owo r koutwha tnumb e r st opr e s e nt .Wha twi l l they show and how do we want to present those? I go through every single detail regarding the present strategy. All of this finally gets mapped out as a three day group process, with different phases where we work with different individuals, teams and the whole group. It has a group process phase and a brainstorming phase in it. ***** MS: The first phase –I ’ may e a ra n dah a l fi nt ot hewho l ep r o c e s sno w–is to convince those guys that the reason they are meeting with internal resistance, is because they are approaching the whole thing with an incomplete mindset. Yo uc a ns a yt ha t ’ sa facilitation, coaching thing. A process might look like resistance to one side, as long a st he ydo n’ tu nde r s t a n dt hedi ve r s i t yi s s u ebe h i n di t .Wha tl ook sl i ker e s i s t a nc et o the one with more rank, looks like liberation to the one with less rank. Andi t ’ sq ui t ec o mpl e x, be c a us ea sy ouk now, a nyg r o upoft hi ss i z e ,ha sal otof internal political things. You convince one guy –you have a good discussion with What is pOD? 178 one guy –one guy buys into your model. Now the moment Mr So-and-So has bought in, Mrs So-and-Sowo n’ tb uyi na ny mor e . About a month ago we got the buy-in from everyone –g r e a t ,we ’ r eg oi ngt og of or i t .No wwe ’ r ede ve l opi ngt h i swho l et hi ng–it has large group process in it, it has small group process in it and it has coaching, peer coaching things in it. It has a newsletter in it. It has a bulletin board with the whole feedback system. The basic idea is –how do you create a group process, over a year and a half with 1400 people, that work in different regions all over a country? HH: And the bulletin board with feedback system is one of the group process methods? MS: Yes. One part is going to be an online thing, people write if they have different opinions –wedon ’ tl i k et h i s , wel i k et hi s ,wedo n’ tl i k et hi s ,wewa nta different s a l a r y , t h i sd oe s n’ twor k ,t h eu ni onp e opl e[ …r e c or di ngi na udi bl e ] .The nwe c l us t e rt h os ea sr ol e s .So,wi t hot he rwor ds , t h a t ’ saqu i t eabi gop e r a t i o n,wi t hl ot s of facets to it. Ano t h e rt hi ngI ’ mdo i ngi sI ’ mwor k i ngwi t ht h r e eNGOs .Thesmaller NGO is t r y i ngt ohookupwi t ht h eb i g g e rNGOs .Th e r e ’ sa nuns p oke nr u l ei nODt h a ts a y s , the lower the financial stake, the more vicious the status battle in the background. ***** MS: Worldwork is the overarching paradigm, that allows us to focus on long-term processes spanning the whole range of OD interventions, as well as to focus on a specific local issue, using the same perspective and interventions for both. One of the situations that I am working with involves a large international corporation, and includes teams and departments on all continents over the period of several years. Another situation focuses for example on a family issue of the local corner store. In both cases, the same paradigm and perspective can be used. And paradoxically, we cannot judge which of the processes will eventually have a larger impact on changing the world, because of sensitivity to initial conditions, also known as the butterfly effect. HH: Tha t ’ swo nde r f u l , ha v i ngt h es a mepa r a d i g mi nt heba c kg r o und .I ’ veworked in s omep l a c e swhe r et h a tha sbe e nmi s s i ng ,whe r et he y ’ vepul l e dbi t sa ndp i e c e sf r o m a l lo ve r ,a ndt he r e ’ snot hi ngi nt heb a c kg r oun dhol di ngi tt og e t he r . MS: Wow. So therefore, so you can never say this went wrong. HH: And I can never stand full ybe h i n di t ,b e c a u s et h e r e ’ ss ome t hi ngmi s s i ng .I t ’ sl i k e empty. ***** HH: Thet hi r dq ue s t i oni s ,‘ wha ta r et hes t e psofpr oc e s so r i e nt e dOD?Wha tdoe si t l ookl i kee t c . ’AsIa s kt h a tIha veas e n s ei tmi g htbei mpos s i bl et oa ns we rt ha ti n the whole s e n s e ,bu tt ha ti tmi g htbee a s i e rt ot a keac a s es t udy .Id on’ tk now,do you have like a model you follow? MS: … On ec l a s s i c a ls c e n a r i oi nc ha ng ema na g e me ntf ora ni nde p e nde ntc ons u l t a n t , who is competing with a group of other consultants, is to be shortlisted. She might What is pOD? 179 g e tat e l e pho nec a l lf r oms o me onet ha ts a y s ,“ we ’ veh e a r dy oudot hi sa ndt hi s , we ’ vel ook e da tva r i ousg r o upsa n dy oua r es h or t -listed. You ended up on our shortlist of 5 different people or groups. Are you interested in that? If so, would y ous e ndusapr o pos a l ? ” HH: And it has a problem definition, or some context? MS: Ye s .Sot h a t ’ se s p e c i a l l yf o rc h a ng ema na g e me ntpr oj e c t s , notf orc ons u l t i ng . Forc o ns u l t i ngus u a l l y ,y ouha v eas p e c i f i cp r obl e m.The y ’ l ls a ys ome t h i n gl i k e , “ wedo n’ tk nowy e ti ft he r e ’ saf i t ,wo ul dy ouc omeove rf o ramor n i nga nds a ya l i t t l ebi ta b outwha ty oudoa ndwhoy oua r e ,s owec a ns e ei fy o ua r eaf i t ? ” Sot h e y ’ l ls a y ,“ wou l dy ouc o mea ndt a l kwi t huss owec a ns e ewh oy oua r ea n d see if you fit, if wewa ntt ou s ey oua sac on s ul t a ntf orap a r t i c u l a rpr o bl e m? ”AndI pr e f e rno wt os a y ,“ be t t e rwoul dbet ha tIc omeove ra ndwor kwi t hy ouont h e pr o bl e m. ”I t ’ sl i k ei fs ome onewo ul ds a yt ome ,“ I ’ ml ook i ngf orat he r a pi s t ,ho w about meeting for a coffee to feel each other out, to see if we like each other, if we a r eaf i t . ”Idon ’ tt hi nki t ’ sa su s e f ula ss a y i ng“ whyd on’ tIg i vey ouas e s s i ona nd we can see how that works out for you. So I prefer that to only going and explaining what Process Work is and all of that. If you have someone who is asking for a proposal, you have an evaluator. This process is important for the organization, as evaluation serves to help the group to understand itself better, become more aware of who they are. Finding out who you fit with is like finding out who you are. Working together on an issue will bring that process up also, but with a framework of making it more conscious. So maybe a g o odwa yt owor kwi t ht hi swou l db et os a y“ l e t ’ swor koni t .Br i ngy ou rwor s t proble m,we ’ l lwo r ko ni tf ora nho ur .Andi fy ou’ r eno tha ppywi t hi ta f t e r wa r ds , y oudon ’ twa ntmet ob eap a r to fi ta ny ho w. ” HH: It is great to hear about it! I love it. ***** HH: Howdoy o ude f i ney o ur s e l fwh e ny o ua r ewor k i ngwi t hor g a n i z a t i o ns… whois Max? MS: How do I define myself? I define myself as a facilitator whose task it is to help the g r ou port h epe r s onc onne c tt ot he i rmy t h.The i rmy t hi sn ots o me t hi ngl i ke ,‘ t ha t ’ s mymy t h,a ndn owIk n owmymy t h’ .Butt h emy t hha samove me ntt oi t ,astory l i n e .I th a sas e nt i e ntc ha r a c t e r i s t i c ,whi c hme a n s ,i t ’ sa l s oapa r t i c ul a rg r oove , i t ’ s e xpe r i e nc e da sf l ow.I tc a nbee xpe r i e nc e da s“ t hez on e ” ,whi c hwek nowf r om s po r t s .Tha t ’ sa l s ot hemy t h.Andi fs ome o nef i ndst ha t ,e v e r y t hi ngwi l lg ob e t ter, orf l o wmor ee a s i l y .The y ’ l lwo r kbe t t e r , t he y ’ l lf l ou r i s hb e t t e r , t he y ’ l ls l e e pbe t t e r , t he y ’ l lde ve l o pne wr e l a t i o ns hi pswi t ht h e i rc o mpe t i t o r s ,a n dt h e y ’ l lha veane w view on the market. Groups that are able to connect with that do as a whole much better. They have done much better financially and in terms of a general feeling a bo utwh a tt he ya r edoi ng .Andi t ’ sa l lc o nne c t e d.Youk nowt ha tf r om y ou r s e l f . If you are in the groove, it happens. What is pOD? 180 HH: So all the things that you say you do –large and small group process, coaching etc – s ome whe r ei nt h eba c kg r oun dt h e r e ’ smy t hwor k ? MS:Ye s , t h a ti ti sabi gpa r tofi t .… Is e emyt a s ki st ohe l pt he mf i n dt heke yp ur pos e , and then notice it, and then celebrate it and then use it. ***** HH: You mentioned all the things you do –coaching individuals, working with teams, strategic retreats, group process, your marketing model, your strategy development model, and your change development model. Would you call all of that process oriented organisational development? MS: I think, really I would call all of that Worldwork. Process Work is the overall umbrella –that has the whole thing in it –but in return Worldwork also has the whole Process Work paradigm in it. And then Worldwork deals with areas that, to begin with, look like they are focusing especially on collective transformation. So if you think of things in terms of personal development, you think of the development of one person, one human being. Then there is collective development, which is anything larger than the human being. What I call process-oriented organisational development, is Worldwork with forprofit and non-profit groups –either organized or networks –that are interested in becoming conscious about or working with who they are and where they want to go. … I think that whole idea of personal development and organisational development, as s y mme t r i ca s pe c t s ,ori s omor p hi ca s pe c t si sr e a l l yhe l p f u l .I t ’ sc o nt a i ne di nou r processwork understanding of non-locality in psychology. What is pOD? 181 Julie Interview –23/12/06 Note taking HH: What kind of organizations do you work with? JD: I work with businesses, mostly small to medium size businesses. Non profit, NGOs Government departments. Intentional communities, co-housing or learning communities. Technical word would be associations. Labour unions Schools and universities. HH: What kind of problems do you work with? JD: Visioning and strategy development –where are we going, were are we headed and how to get there. Team building, team development with leadership teams, and with other staff. Executive leadership teams and staff conflict –collaboration, teamwork and issues like that. AndI ’ vedo net r a i ni ng , s t r a i g htf or wa r dt r a i ni ng . I t ' sha r dt os e pe r a t e …;ODi sof t e nabl e ndo fdi f f e r e n ti nterventions –mix of training, facilitating, coaching. HH: Staff and executive leadership –are there some general issues? JD: Leadership teams each have their own silos, and are used to being leaders of their teams. When they get with other vice-presidents or leaders, they become almost competitive. Almost afraid, fear of speaking out. Afraid to interact. Fear around di s a g r e e i ng .Pe op l eba s i c a l l yg oa l ongwi t ht h i ng s , t h e ydon ’ tk n owhowt o disagree. They identify more with their silos, operations leading operations team, IT leading IT team. Collaboration –t he y ’ r enotus e dt oi t , don ’ tk n owhowt odoi t , notus e dt os p e a k i ng out. Staff conflict –e nt r yl e ve lma na g e me n tpr ob l e msc omeupal ot… s t a f fa nd ma na g e r sha v ec onf l i c t… pe o pl eh a vet r oub l ema na g i ngupwa r d s .Th a t ’ sabi g thing I see –pe o pl ea r enotc e r t a i nh owt oma na g eu pwa r ds .Do n’ tk nowho wt o e ng a g ea n di n t e r a c ta ndma na g ebos s e s ,a n dbos s e sd on’ tk nowho wt oe mp owe r people. What is pOD? 182 Audio Recording Transcript HH: In general then, power seems to be a big thing you work with in terms of issues that you work with in organizations? JD: Iwo ul ds a yt ha tc ome supal ot .Youk now, i t ’ ss or to fl i k ei fwewe r et a l ki nga b out i ndi vi d ua l s ,i t ’ dbel i k e ,whyd ope op l ec omet oy ou rpr a c t i c e ?We l lt he r e ’ s depressed, then they have relationship problems. These are the presenting issues. I do n’ twa n tt oma keadi a g nos t i c… Idon’ twa ntt oma ket oomuc hofab i gd e a lout of it, do you know what I mean? This is why process workers work with an organiz a t i on.The s ea r el i k epr e s e nt i ngi s s ue st h a tp e op l es t r ug g l ewi t h, i tdoe s n’ t me a nt os a yi t ’ st h es u mt o t a lofwha twed oi no r ga n i z a t i on s ,t he ya r el i kei s s ue s that bring people to therapy, so to speak. HH: Ar et h e r es omeot he r“ p r e s e nt i ngi s s ue s ”t ha t other organizations have, that are common? JD: I ’ ms ur et h e r ea r e ,t hi si swha tI ’ vee nc oun t e r e dpr i ma r i l y .I ’ ms ur et he r ea r eal ot of issues like strategy development, succession issues, leadership talent, leadership development. There are lots of is s ue s .The s ea r ej us tt heone sI ’ vemo s tr e c e nt l y encountered. There are as many issues that bring people into organizations as there are that bring clients into individual therapy, to create the parallel there. HH: You mentioned that there are all sorts of different types of organizations and then these are some of the general issues. Have you noticed that different types of themes comes up, or is it really that we are all people and we all have relationship problems and we all struggle with our own power? JD: No, not really. Certain structures seem to engender a certain type of process. There is clearly a non-profit organization structure, that is unique to non-profits, where funding comes from third party sources, frequently governmental groups or non governmental organizations that fund or fund raising drives. Or they are usually started out of activist principles or strong social justice issues, and so that creates a set of issues that are really unique. You ’ v eg otma t r i xo r g a ni z a t i on sa r eve r ys pecial, where you have got multiple lines of direct reports, multiple reporting lines, overlapping a lot of companies. St r uc t u r eg i ve sr i s et opa r t i c ul a rt y pe sofi s s ue s .Ido n’ th a vee no ug hda t at oma ke any definitive statements. This is just anecdotallywha tI ’ venot i c e d . And at the end of the day, yes, we are all just people and these are unique mythic issues relating to the organization, mythic meaning long term, chronic. And the r e s ol ut i oni sof t e ns i mpl e ,b a s i cp e op l ei s s ue s .I t ’ sno tl i k ead i f ferent set of interventions are required. HH: When you say the resolution is often simple basic people issue type things, it makes me think the thing that might be special about working with organizations is that step beforehand, which is identifying what the issues are or, getting from their presenting problem to their next step. What is pOD? 183 JD: Certainly, absolutely. There are a lot of parallels that are useful between individual therapy and organization therapy, or organization development. The client comes, the client has a presenting issue, the client understanding of the issue itself is diagnostic –i nt hes e n s et h a ti t ’ sn ots omuc hade s c r i p t i o nofwh a ti s ,b uta description of the edges and the structures and the roles and ghost roles of the client organization or individual. Absolutely. HH: Tha t ’ si n t e r e s t i ng . JD: I t ’ sj us tl i k ei fy ouh a veac l i e nto fc e r t a i nc o l ourorg a y–they are going to have c e r t a i ni s s ue st ha ty ou' r eg oi ngt or e c og n i z e .I t ’ ss i mi l a r . HH: So when the client is the organization, h owdoy o u‘ s e e ’t h e m?I ts e e msac l i e nt s e e msamuc he a s i e re nt i t y ,t he r e ’ sonep e r s oni nf r ontofy ou ,Ig ue s swi t hd i f f e r e nt pa r t si nt h e m.I nt heor ga n i z a t i o ny ou ’ r et a l k i ngt oon epe r s on ,bu tt he r e ’ sa l s oa n organization in the back. It sounds more complicated. JD: I tf a l l sund e rt het he or e t i c a lf r a me wo r kofWor l dwor k ,whe r ey o u’ veg otag r o up, a ndy ou’ v eg otpe op l et a l k i ng ,on ea tat i me ,ory ou’ veg o tas i mi l a rt hi ng .You t hi nkt hepe r s o nt a l k i ng ,y out hi nkt he s ea r er o l e s ,a ndt h e r e ’ sap r i ma r yprocess, a r ol et ha tn e e dst obes a t i s f i e d,i t ’ sg otg oa l sa nda g e nd a sa ndt hos eha vet obe s a t i s f i e d.Andy o ul ooka twha t ’ st r ou bl i ngi t , wha t ’ st h es e c on da r ypr oc e s s ,wh a t are the roles that are ghost roles and how can we help facilitate a better connection between those roles? Ye si t ’ sc omp l i c a t e d,b utwedoi ta l lt het i mewi t hg r oup s ,a n dwea r ea l wa y s looking at groups as organism, organizations as organism. So yes, it certainly r e qu i r e sas pe c i a ls e tofs k i l l s , buti t ’ snotou t s i deo fa ny t hi ngwe ’ vea l r e a dydon e with groups and group process and Worldwork. HH: Tha tma ke smet hi nkofag e ne r a lg r oupwor kt y p eque s t i on ,whi c hi snotoneI ’ ve t houg hta bo utb e f or e ,whi c hi s ,y ou ’ r ewo r k i ngwi t ha ni n di vi dua la spa r toft h e g r ou p,i t ’ sas p e c i a ls k i ll where you are seeing the whole group and the whole s y s t e m, a ndy e ty o ua r es t i l lwo r k i ngwi t ha ni n di vi dua l .Myque s t i oni s n ’ t pa r t i c ul a r l yc l e a r ,I ’ mnots ur ei ft h a tme a nsa ny t hi ngt oy ou. JD: Same thing –at the risk of being really simple, a client comes to you and they are a member of a family. They are talking to you about their family dynamics and f a mi l yi s s u e s ,a n dy oul i s t e nt oi ta ndy out hi nkt oy our s e l f“ ok a y ,myg oa li st o help this person get along with their family. They are my client, they are the ones I g e tt owor kwi t h .Ic a n’ ti nf l ue n c eot he rpe o pl eout s i demyc l i e nt ,b utIc a nh e l p them with these edges. And what I hear from my clients are not just descriptions of facts, but also descriptions of their edges, that they need help wit h, a nds ot ha t ’ smy j ob. ” And, depending on how they talk about the problem, I might need to see him or her work with the team. If it sounds like they keep talking about relationship things, and difficulties they are having, it may be that I need them to bring in the whole team. Or it may be that I can just do this one to one, and then help them with their e dg e s .I td e pe n dsont hepe r s o n’ sr ol ei nt heor g a ni z a t i on . What is pOD? 184 HH: I ’ mg oi ngt omov et h e nt oque s t i on1 . 3 ,whi c hi s‘ wh a ti sy ou rr ol e , howwou l dt he y de f i nei t ,ho wwo ul dy oud e f i ney ou r s e l f ? ’ JD: We l l ,i t ’ sve r ydi f f e r e nta l lt het i me .Th ewor dc on s ul t a nti son eo ft hemo r ee mpt y wor dsi nt heEng l i s hl a ngu a g e .I t ’ sl i k e‘ wha t e ve r ’ .Some t i me sI ’ vebe e nbr oug ht in to facilitate open sessions, like strategy or visioning. And sometimes people say, look I have team issues, so it depends, it depends a lot. HowdoIde f i nemyr ol e ?Pe o pl ewoul ds a yI ’ mac ons u l t a n t ,orac oa c h.OrI ’ ma trainer or a facilitator. The word is really not the more salient thing. It depends a l oto nwhobr i ng smei n.Ido n’ tt hi nkIc a nb emor es pe c i f i ct h a nt ha t ,I ’ ms or r y . HH:No,n o,t h a t ’ sf i ne . HH: AndI ’ mt h i nk i ngt he n,i fy ou’ vebe e nwo r k i ngwi t ho nepe r s o ni na no r g a ni z a t i on , and then they introduce you to the team, does that come up, what it is they call you? JD: Oha bs o l ut e l y ,i t ’ save r ys t r a t e g i ct hi ngwh a tt he yc a l lmei nat e a m.Li k eI ’ m t hi nk i nga bou ton ebus i ne s st ha tI ’ mc ur r e nt l ywor k i ngwi t h.I ’ ms t i l lt a l k i ngwi t h the manager about working with thema na g e me ntt e a ma ndwe ’ r es pe nd i ngal o to f t i med i s c us s i nghowh e ’ sg oi ngt oi nt r odu c emet ot het e a m.Tha ti t s e l fi sp a r to f t hes t r a t e gy .I t ’ sr e a l l yl i k eI ’ mwo r k i ngwi t hh i ma r o undh i se dg e st ohi mb r i ng i ng in someone to work with the team. You’ r er e a l l ywor k i ngwi t ht hema na g e r ’ se dg e s–if the manager knew how to wor kwi t ht h et e a m,t he ywou l dn’ tne e dme , s oI ’ mwo r k i ngwi t hh i se dg e s .So ho wh ei nt r od uc e smei spa r to ft hewor kt ha twe ’ r edoi ng .I t ’ sno tj us tl i kea n inconsequential thing. Does he introduce me as someone who does team work, does he introduce me as a consultant or as his coach? It depends on how the team wi l le mbr a c eme ,wi l lt he ybes u s pi c i ous , wi l lt h e yt hi nkI ’ md oi ngs o me t hi ngon his behalf? So all of these things depend on the strategy to the organization development job itself. HH: Fascinating. Moving then onto the next question. How long does your work no r ma l l yg of or ?AndI ’ mg u e s s i ngt ha tmi g htc ha ng ef ordi f f e r e ntt y pe sof organizations. Or maybe there is something more general? JD: I t ’ sc o mpl e t e l yde p e nde nto nwha ti ti s .The r e ’ sa l lk i ndsofa ns we r si nt ha t question. One of the things about organizational work, that seems to be somewhat different than one-to-one work, for the first time I have a big difference here, is the courtship pe r i od .Th e r e ’ sl i ket hi se no r mousl e a dt i meb e t we e n, a sy ouk now.Ne g ot i a t i ng wha ty ou’ r ed oi ng , wha tt h e yne e d,wha tt he i rpr ob l e mi s .Whe r ei tbe g i ns ,wh e ni t e nd s ,wha t ’ st hes c ope ?Tha tj us ti sal ongp r o c e s s , f o rv a r i o usr e a s on s .I t ’ sr a r e t ha ty ou ’ l lg e tac a l la ndy ou' r eouti nt wod a y s .Us ua l l yy o ug e tac a l la nds e ve n mon t h sl a t e ry o u’ r ed oi ngs ome t hi ng .I t ’ sal ongpr oc e s so fd i s c us s i onsa nd figuring it out. Al o toft i me sp e op l edo n’ tk nowwha tt he yne e da ndt he ydon’ tk n owwh a tt he ya r e asking for –they just know they have a problem, and typically they interrupt ... they What is pOD? 185 mess themselves up by trying to diagnose the issue and then they call you in to a c t ua l l ydoa ni n t e r ve nt i on.The ys a y“ c o ul dy ouc o mei na nd do x, could you c omei na n dwor kwi t ht het e a morc ou l dy ouc omei na n ddot hi s ? ”Th e ny o uha ve t oba c ku pa nds a y ,“ wh a ti st h epr obl e my o ua r ehop i ngt h es ol ut i onwi l la dd r e s s ? ” So me t i me sy ouc a na nds ome t i me sy o uc a n’ tg e tt ot h a twi t ht h e m. HH: Havey ouf oun dt ha t ’ st hes a mewi t ha l lor g a ni z a t i on s ?Ik nowt ha twe l lf or businesses –has it also been the same for non-profits, NGOs, governments, associations, labour unions and all the others you mentioned? JD: It h i nkt h a t ’ sp r e t t ymuc ha c r os st heboa r d… Idon ’ tt hi nkt he r e ’ sabi gdi f f e r e nc e t he r ebe t we e nt h ed i f f e r e ntt y p e sofor g a n i z a t i on s .I ’ mn ots u r e ,b utt ha t ’ sj us tmy f i r s ti mpul s e , t h a t ’ sp r e t t ymu c hwha tI ’ vef o und . HH: And then once things are set up, once the initial courtship is complete, the actual work itself –I guess from the next step to when you leave the organization, how long does that work normally go for? JD: Tha tr e a l l yv a r i e s .I tde pe nd so nwha t ’ sh a ppe ni ng .Idi dt hi sl o ngwor ki nt he Balkans, with labour unions and NGOs ,a n di twe ntonf ort hr e ey e a r s .I ’ veb e e n called in to do a day facilitation, to work with a group on strategizing, just straight forward facilitation work. Is that organization development? Well, yeah, a piece of it. HH:Tha t ’ sar e a l l yk e yque s t i o n. Is that organization development work? JD: Ye s ,o r g a ni z a t i ond e ve l opme ntt he or i s t sa l s odon ’ ta g r e eo nt h epa r a me t e r sof or g a ni s a t i o na lde v e l o pme n t .The r e ’ sal otofove r l a pi nwha ty ou’ r ed oi ngi n or g a ni z a t i onde ve l opme nt .Th e r e ’ swor k i ngwi t ht h eb ig organizational change pr o c e s s ,t he r e ’ sf a c i l i t a t i ng .Andt he r e ’ swor k i ngwi t ha l lt hep r o c e s s e soft he organization, aligning all the systems. For example, let's say the problem is like performance, getting people to perform be t t e r .Andi t ’ sn otj u s taque s t i o noft r a i ni ng ,a n di t ’ snotj u s taqu e s t i o nofbe t t e r management and better performance evaluation, but you have to ask yourself, are all the systems aligned? Is the pay package, is the compensation aligned with the performance goal? If you want people to work better in teams, but the c ompe ns a t i onp a c ka g ei sb a s e doni nd i vi dua lpe r f or ma nc e , t h a t ’ sl i k eal a c kof a l i g nme nt .I ’ ms a y i ngt hi si sonet hi ngor g a ni s a t i on a ld e ve l opme ntwor k swi t h . Your larger question, which is how long? I said there’ sno tac omp l e t ea g r e e me n t onwh a tor g a ni s a t i ona lde v e l opme nti s ,a ndt ha t ’ sa l s oi nt hef i e l dofor g a ni s a t i o na l de v e l opme nti t s e l f .I t ’ sar e l a t i v e l yne wf i e l d ,i tg o tar e l a t i v e l yunt e s t e d me t ho dol og y .The r e ’ sal o to fde ba t eove ri t ,a sar e a lt hi ng ,how to measure its e f f e c t i ve n e s s .Th e r e ’ sal o tofg r ou ppr oc e s si nt hef i e l da bo utt ha t . So just to come back to your question of what it is and how long it takes, really de p e nd so nwha t ’ sbe i ngdo ne . HH: So in your own mind, if you went in to work with a group for an afternoon and facilitated a group process, would you call that organisational development? What is pOD? 186 JD: Probably not. Organizational work, or organizational consulting, facilitating maybe. Organizational development is basically assessing and designing interventions towards a particular goal. To come in to facilitate something –it depends. Designing and rolling out training f orat e a m?I tde pe nds .I t ’ sr e a l l yac ompl i c a t e dt hi ng .Li k e , f ore xa mpl e ,y oua r e brought in and you talk to the HRpe r s on ,a ndde c i det ha tt he r e ’ sawh ol epr ob l e m with the management team. And you want to design and roll out team development s e s s i on s .Ig ue s sI ’ dc a l lt ha tor g a ni z a t i o na lde ve l opme n t .I ’ mi na ni nne rde ba t e … Idon’ tha veade f i ni t i v ea ns we r . Facilitating one single session? –no. It depends on the length of time and it also depends on whether it is tied to a larger g o a lt ha ty o ua r ea l s oapa r tof .Tha t ’ showIwoul dg e ti t .Ok a y ,n owI ’ m al i t t l e bit happier. HH: So if we just look at the ti mec ompo ne ntf i r s t .You ’ ves a i dones e s s i o nbyi t s e l f i s n’ to r g a ni z a t i on a ld e ve l op me nt ,i t ’ ss o me t hi nge l s e , ma y beo r g a n i z a t i on a lwo r kor whatever. JD: Tha t ’ swh a tI ’ ms a y i ng–Ido n’ tt hi nkt i mei sag oodi nd i c a t o r ,Idon ’ tt hi nki t ’ sa meaningful indic a t or .It hi nki t ’ swha ty o udoi nt h a tt i me .Soi f ,f o re xa mpl e ,y ou go in for one day, and you work with the leadership team in that one day, and help them design a strategy or you help them with something and they work with their goals –I would call that organizational development. Soi t ’ snott i me , i t ’ swha ty oud o.I t ' st h ede g r e et owhi c hy ourwor ki si mb e dd e di n a larger goal that you are somehow a part of. So for example, just to come in and facilitate a meeting with the staff on a particular di r e c t i onf oron epr oj e c t ,y e sa ndno .Tha t ’ sabi to fag r e yz one .Ory o u’ r ea s k e d come in and to facilitate the conflict between two members of the staff –that I ma y bewoul dn ’ tc a l lor ga n i z a t i o na ld e ve l o pme ntbe c a us ey o u’ r enotbr oughti nt o help with an issue that then ties in with the larger goals that you yourself can help f a c i l i t a t e .Yo u’ r ed oi ngi ti n di r e c t l y ,bu t…. HH: You ’ r edo i ngi ti ndi r e c t l ya ndn otne c e s s a r i l ywi t ha na wa r e ne s soft hel a r g e rg o a l . JD: Exactly, you may not be able to reflect on the goals with the people involved. HH: Okay, so it sounds like it has a lot to do with a larger goal, understanding what it is a ndwo r k i ngt owa r dsi t .Ev e ni fi t ’ son l yas ma l lpa r toft h eb i gg e rs t r a t e gy . JD: Yes. HH: Just back tracking a little, you said the work you did with the Balkans was over three years. What sort of frequency of contact did you have with them, how often were you working with them? JD: I flew over there probably two to three times a year, for three years, for about a week at a time. And I worked on the phone with the consultant who brought me in, my partner on the project. What is pOD? 187 HH: And that person had more ongoing contact with them? JD: Ye s ,t h a tpe r s onwa sove rt he r el i k es e ve r a lt i me say e a r ,l e t ’ ss a y .Hewa st h e r ea lot. HH: I ’ mg oi ngj umpa r o undal i t t l e , be c a u s eI ’ vej u s tha da not h e rt ho ug h ta r ou ndt r y i ng t ode f i newha ti sa n di s n’ tOD.I ’ mt h i n k i nga b outt hepa r a l l e la g a i nwi t hwor k i ng one-on-one in therapy, and wondering whether there is a similar philosophical qu e s t i o na r oun dwha ti sa n di s n ’ tt he r a py .I sas i ng l es e s s i o nt he r a py ,ordoe si t ne e dt ob es ome t hi ngb i g g e r ?Doy out hi nkt he r e ’ sap a r a l l e lt he r e ? JD: Yeah, well it made me think about mediation in therapy. You know coaching in therapy. I think therapy makes similar distinctions around the scope of the i nt e r ve n t i o nt h a ty o ua r eha v i ngwi t ht hei ndi vi d ua l .Soma y b et ha t ’ sapa r a l l e l .I f y ouc omei nt of a c i l i t a t eac onf l i c twi t hs ome b odyi nt he i rf a mi l y ,y ouwo ul dn ’ tc a l l that therapy if you are just helping them solve the issue of who gets the motor home, you know what I mean? But then, if you were to look at the larger issues of helping them get along better, maybe that would be more like therapy. HH: So, this is a big open ended question. How would you define process oriented organizational development? If I was to read it on a flyer, what would it say, would be one way of tackling the question. JD: We l l ,I ’ mg o i ngt od odg et h a ta ndI ’ mg oi ngt os a yt ha tpr oc e s so r i e nt e d organizational development is using process oriented methods to further the development of an organization. HH: How do you go about doing that? JD: Oka y ,l e t ’ sk e e pus i nga na l og i e she r e .I fy ouwe r et os a y ,wha ti spr oc e s sor i e n t e d c omawo r k ,I ’ ds a y ,i t ’ sus i ngs k i l l sa nd methods of process work to work with a comatosed patient. Same thing, same answer. What is process oriented work with addiction and substance abuse? Same answer. Now if you said to me, what is it that you do with a comatosed patient, or what is it thaty oud owi t ha na d di c t e dpe r s o n,o rwha ti si ty oud owi t haf a mi l y ,I ’ mg oi ngt o ha v et h es a met r o ubl ea sIha vewi t ha nor g a n i z a t i o n.The r e ’ saf r a me wor kf or un de r s t a nd i ngt h ede ve l o pme n tofa nor g a ni z a t i on.The r e ’ sas e tofi n t e r ve nt i on s we use that are designed for working with an organization. So what I do, depends on what the problem is, it depends on who brings me in, and t hes c op eofmywor kwi t ht he m.Soy o us e e ,I ’ mno tg o i ngt ob ea bl et os a ywha tI do with an organization, unless we talk ab out… i t ’ sj us tl i k ewi t hac l i e nt–Ic a n ’ t s a ywha tI ’ mg oi ngt odowi t hac l i e n t ,un l e s sIk no wwh a tt hec l i e nt ’ spr obl e mi s . Unless you want to give the same very general answer that I would give if my father says, what is process work? And then I would give a very general answer – we l l ,wef ol l o wt hep r oc e s soft hei n di vi du a l ,e t c .ButIdo n’ tt hi nky oua r el ook i ng for that. Are you looking for that large an answer? HH: We l l ,It hi nka tonel e v e lIa m,b utI ’ mmor ei nt e r e s t e di nt hede t a i l .In e e d that, but I ’ ml o ok i ngf ors ome t h i ngde e pe r .SoI ’ mt hi nk i ngt h e r ea r eac o upl eofwa y swe can do that. We could look at a case study, and go through the different steps, from What is pOD? 188 understanding the development to the interventions. Or before that, you said there was a set of interventions. Are they like coaching and facilitating and those sort of things? Maybe you could list those as a beginning point. JD: We l l ,l e t ’ ss e enow.Wedoal oto fb a s i cg r oupd e ve l op me ntwor k , whe r ewehe l p a group get over an edge. Or say the visioning –l e t ’ ss a yt heor g a ni z a t i onne e ds help with connecting with who it is, it's at a big crossroad, so we do mythic work. Which is exactly what we would do when an individual has big questions about their development. We look at the myth and the deeper symbols, and the persistent ghost roles or allies of the organization, and help it connect with its myth. And we have a group process method, where we bring in the background ghosts and represent the roles that are more marginalized as a way to unstuck a group around something. We also work a lot with double signals and basic rank and signals. And helping people cross edges to really say and be straight, you know, learn how to interact more. We have a lot of communication inter ve nt i on sa r o undt ha t .Tha t ’ s part of the group process sometimes. We also have a whole lot of team work interventions, which are different from group process. Team work is more about everybody identifying their strengths, and empowering people to bring out their own different strengths and to bring out those of others. We have interventions around coaching –certainly working individually, helping leaders and managers in organizations with the issues that they have. So we do coaching. Training is definitely in the organizational [inaubible], where you train as you work with a group –you share what you are doing as a training, so people can pick it up themselves. We have an assessment –we can do interviews and assessment. We can do things like helping an organization by looking at and analyzing the data, looking at what the members say. Assessing what people in the organization say a bo uti ta ndt he nh e l pi ngs o me onei nt e r pr e tt hos ed a t a .Sot he r e ’ sl ot sofdi f f e r e nt ways we can work with a group. HH: Tha t ’ sg r e a t ,t ha t ’ swonde r f ul .Andt he ns t e pp i ngba c k ,y ous a i dt he r e ’ sa framework for understanding the development of the organization. Can you elaborate? JD: The framework that we typically use is the Worldwork framework, where we look in terms of roles and ghost roles and we look in terms of the long term dynamics and pressures and influences that are part of the organization's wholeness. We work to give back the sense of wholeness to the organization, so they feel more empowered, so they have a deeper connection to their different parts. Including all stakeholders –clients, customers, shareholders –all the various parts of an organization. HH: The next question goes into the specific details again. What are the steps of process oriented OD? What does it look like from the moment contact is made between you What is pOD? 189 a ndt h eo r g a ni z a t i ona ndwhe ny oul e a vet hep r o j e c t ?I ’ mt h i nk i ng ,a sas ugg e s t i o n he r e ,t ha ty out hi nko fo nepa r t i c ul a ror g a n i z a t i o ny ou ’ vewor ke dwi t h,a ndwe work from the beginning to the end with that one, as a possible way of doing that. JD: I just want to say as an interview meta-c omme nt ,t he r er e a l l yi sno… l i k ewi t ha n i ndi vi d ua l ,y o uc a n’ ts a ye v e r yc l i e n tc o me si na ndhe r e ’ showi tg oe s .Tha t ’ sno t how we talk about proc e s swor k , s owewo ul dn ’ tt a l ka bou tor g a ni z a t i on development work that way either. And organization development itself depends on what the basic problem is. I fwedot a l ka b outonec a s e ,whi c hIt hi nki sab e t t e rwa yt odoi t ,i t ’ si mpor t a n t t ha ti t ’ snotf or mul a t e da st houg ht hi si sho wi t ’ sd onei ne v e r ys i t ua t i on .Ar ey ou with me there? HH: Tot a l l y .AndIt h i nkt h el e v e l sa r ei mpo r t a nthe r e .I ’ ms ur et h e r e ’ ss t i l labe g i nni ng phase, a middle phase and an end phase, which are going to be similar. At a high enough level, there is making the initial contact, getting some understanding around wha tt hei d e nt i f i e dpr obl e mi s ,c omi ngupwi t hi n t e r ve nt i on s .Th e r e ’ l lbe something like that at a very high level, I think? JD: Beyond what you just said, I don’ tt h i n ks o.Theor g a n i z a t i o na lpr oj e c ti nt h e Balkans ended because the funding was cut. So how things end is very different. Organizations are also really rapid and radical –things change from one minute to the next. A memo comes down and suddenly the person you were working with is g o ne !Wewe r ewo r k i ngwi t ha nHRpe r s on, a nds ud de n l yhe ’ sg one .Tha t ’ si t , he ’ sbe e nmove d.Andi t ’ sl i k e , oh, oka y . So yes, you come in, you have an initial conversation. One of the things I do, and how I think, i st ha tIa s kmy s e l f ,who’ sb r i ng i ngmei na ndwha t ’ st he i rr e l a t i on s hi p with the organization? And what are the edges they have and what are the problems they have? How is that related to the organization? How are the issues that they are having or the problems that they have, exactly what the organization has? Andwho ’ su ps e tt h a tI ’ mi n?Wha ta r et hedi f f e r e ntr o l e s ?Who’ sha ppyI ’ mi n, who ’ sup s e tt h a tI ’ mi n ?Thi spe r s oni sha v i ngt r oubl ewi t hs o mepa r to ft he organization, and who am I meant to solve, by my presence? So I think about it that way –t ha t ’ spa r to fmyi n i t i a le nt r yi n t oa no r g a n i z a t i on–to think about myself as part of what the person is attempting to do. And that for me is a big piece of my strategy. Then we talk and think about what the problem is, and what wants to happen? But s ome t i me spe opl ec omei na n dt h e ydon ’ twa ntt ot a l ka b outt hepr ob l e m.Th e y have a very specific something that they want you to do. And sometimes they just need help to figure that out, as well. And maybe what you are doing for a while, is just coaching, or you are just working with them on brainstorming what the problems are. For a large part of what I did in the Balkans, I worked with my partner, on the project itself. And trying to brainstorm about how the project was going, where were the problems, how the problems could be solved. And in particular, some of What is pOD? 190 the dynamics between the different cultural groups –communist, post communist culture, labour culture, western Europe versus eastern Europe culture, poor versus rich, east versus west, those sort of things. So brainstorming on how to negotiate those cultural differences. So that was a lot of that work, figuring things out, as well as coaching and providing support. There was also working with facilitating s omeo ft hedy na mi c sbe t we e nt h ed i f f e r e ntf a c t i on so ft heNGO’ s ,a st he yc a me together. So very, very different. That particular project had one goal in mind. It was designing and developing an enterprise development project, for labour unions and former republics of Yugoslavia. HH: Could you think about one organization, and maybe more of a business type, or industry type organization and go through the steps from woe to go with them? JD: Tha t ’ sah a r de rone . HH: Tha t ’ sh a r de r ? JD: We l l ,t h e r ea r et wooft he mI ’ mi nt hemi dd l eo f , s oIc a n’ tr e a l l ys a ywhe r eI ’ m going. Is there a reason why you wanted it to be private industry as opposed to NGOS? Is it because of your own private interest? HH: Ye s .Buti ft ha t ’ sg oi ngt obed i f f i c ul t ,i tn e e dn ’ tbe . JD: We l l ,o neg o ts t op pe dbe c a us es ome oneg otp r omot e d .TwoI ’ mi nt hemi dd l eo f . And two to three others were short term things that I did –like facilitating a conflict, and a visioning. There was a small company and I worked with a conflict in the leadership team. The conflict reflected problems they had in the structure of their company, so I helped them make a link between the conflict and then changes in the organization itself. It was a small process, a small project. I tb e g a nwi t hame e t i ngwi t ht hedi r e c t o roft hec omp a ny ,a n d… HH: Was the director the person who invited you in? JD: Yes. I met with that person several times, and discussed the issue. Then, after hearing the issue and discussing it with him in detail, I proposed a method for how to work with it, based on what he told me about the company, the people involved, and everything. I proposed that we sit together with the management staff and that we look at the conflict that emerged. It was one particular conflict that came up, a pretty heavy conflict that came up between two people in the management team –and we actually try to mediate or facilitate that conflict. But also, we did two other things with that. We looked at the conditions that led to that conflict, and how they were part of a problem in the organization itself, that the individuals were in a way on a collision course based on a lack of clarity in the or g a ni z a t i on, a nds ot he i rc on f l i c twa s n’ tj us tpe r s o na l .Wel ook e da tdi f f e r e nt ways we could solve that, organizationally. Through certain types of training and also through certain organisational changes, like structural changes in the organization. So, I proposed that to him, and sent it as a proposal, and he said yes. What is pOD? 191 Then we met with the team, and did that, and then we followed up with the training aspect as I recommended, and then I worked personally with him. I wrote up my suggestions for changes in the organization. Structural changes, and how to follow up with that. Including promotional materials, how people report to one another and things like that. And that was it. It took all of a couple of weeks from start to finish. HH: Did you then have some sort of assessment of how it went? JD: You know I did –a tt het i meIdi dn ’ tassess how it went –I would now. This was a bo ut6y e a r sa g o ,a n dIha dn’ tdon eawh ol el o t–a ndIs t i l lha v e n’ td onet ha tmuc h –a ndIdi dn ’ tf ol l owupordoa na s s e s s me n t .Igue s sa na s s e s s me n tofmy s e l fi s what you are talking about, right? HH: And the effectiveness of the work. JD: That's what I meant - a follow-up .Idi d n’ tdot h a t , buta ni nt e r e s t i ngt hi ng happened. I had an opportunity to talk to this person recently, for another reason. As we were just chatting, I said how is it going? He gave me an update on the whole process. I had actually written it up. I had written up a bunch of case studies, and wanted to put it up on a website –I ended up not putting it up on my website, because there were some sensitive issues and I felt a little awkward putting it up. But I had written i tup ,a n dIs a i d, i t ’ sf unn y ,Iwr ot eupac a s es t udyoft h a tf ormywe bs i t e ,Iwa nt e d t oa s ky o upe r mi s s i onf orput t i ngi tup ,wou l dy oumi ndr e a di ngi t ?Hes a i d,I ’ d love to. So I sent it to him. So in a way I had a bit of a follow up. He was very appreciative of the case study, he was very appreciative of the work, and so I got some feedback from him. I wished I got it earlier –Idi d n’ tf e e lIs h oul dha ve waited six years. I would do it now. HH: And when you say he was appreciative of the case study, he was appreciative of the work that you did, in retrospect he could see how it had had an impact, and how something had changed? JD: Yeah, and he also just really liked reading about it. He really enjoyed hearing about it from another source. He enjoyed reviewing it more academically, more t he o r e t i c a l l y , s ot h a t ’ swh a thel i ke d .I twa sar e a l l yg oodt hi ng .Wh i c hma deme think, wow, I bet people would really like that. It would be a good thing to do. HH: It h i nki t ’ sal i t t l ebi tl i k eb e i ngac l i e nt .I tc a ns ome t i me sb ei n t e r e s t i ngbe i ngi n the middle of it, and a day or two later you think, wow, I know I got it at the time, bu twha twa si t ?I ’ mg ue s s i ngh a vi ngi twr i t t e na sac a s es t u dyj us tt og e tba ck in touch with it all again and seeing it from outsiders eyes, is great. I ’ mg oi ngt oba c k t r a c kal i t t l ei ns o meo ft het hi ng sy ous a i di nt ha tp r oc e s s–that was fantastic, thanks Julie. After you spoke with him and understood the issues and came up with a proposal –was that a written proposal? JD: Yes. HH: And then one of the parts of the proposal was to sit together with the management staff and look at the problem and the conflict that emerged. And at one level it What is pOD? 192 looked like it was between two people on the team, and you worked with the two people in the team, in the larger group? Were the rest of the people there? JD: Yes, in the larger group. But briefly and rapidly –i twa s n’ tl i k eal o ngdr a wno ut relationship conflict. It was short, and fa c t ua l .The r e ’ snotal o toft ol e r a nc e ,y o u k n owy ouc a n’ tr e a l l ys pe ndal o to ft i meg oi ngde e pi nt ope o pl e ’ se mot i ons , f e e l i ng sa n di s s u e s .I t ’ sv e r yc oun t e r -productive in a team, in a business. HH: Howl ongwa si twhe ny ous a y‘ v e r ys hor t ’ ? JD: Well we talked about the conflict, and finishing up the actual conflict between the pe o pl e ,Ido n’ tk now,t o okl i k ebe t we e n20 ,30 ,40mi n ut e s . Then we moved into the discussion of looking at it more in terms of the larger team and what happened, and how to understand that. HH: And you did all of that in one session with the larger group? JD: That was all one session, yeah. HH: The main intervention with the people other than the director, all happened in one sitting? JD: He was present, he was a part of it. The conflict focused on two people. Working directly with those two people on what happened and all that stuff was short. It then more rapidly went into a discussion about the whole team, and what the conflict meant for the whole team. And how it was a reflection of certain larger organizational dynamics, and how we could resolve that and what people thought about that. Then there were certain training issues. That was a second session. And then there was a follow up on organizational structures –that was a meeting and a session and a written report and a couple of individual sessions with the director. HH: I st h e r ea ny t hi ngi nwh a twe ’ vet a l ke da bou tt oda yf ory ouwhe r eIpo s s i b l ymo ve d us onto the next question too quickly, and you thought you had more to say about anything? JD: Id on’ tt hi nks o.Ino t i c ei twa sha r dt ot a l ka bo uts t e p s ,l i k ewha ta r et het y pi c a l steps. If we keep using the analogy of a client it sheds a light on it –t h e r es hou l d n’ t really be a difference structurally between an individual client and an organizational client, a group client. So the actual steps of what you do with someone, was hard f ormet og e tt o.Bu tI ’ mg l a dy oup us he dont ha t . HH: I think we did get to some specific steps for the organization you used as a case s t udy ,a n dIun de r s t a ndi t ’ snotg oi ngt obet hes a mef ore a c hor g a n i z a t i o n,b uti n retrospect there are some specific steps and phases. You can see the story-line so to speak. JD: Ye s ,t h a t ’ sus e f u lf orc e r t a i nt hi ng s , t ha t ’ sr i g h t . But otherwisen o,Ido n’ th a vea ny t hi ngt ha tpop su pt ha tIwa ntt og oba c kt oo r that I feel unfinished with. What is pOD? 193 HH: We l lIt hi n kt h e nf ornowJ ul i e ,t ha t ’ sbe e nt o t a l l ywon de r f ula ndt he r e ’ sal oto f g r e a ti nf or ma t i oni nt he r e , a ndI ’ mg oi ngt one e dt os i twi t hi ta ndput it into an internal framework and see where I go from there. JD: Gr e a t ,g ood ,I ’ mg l a d.Tha t ’ sh e l pf ul .Ha vey ouf ou ndac on s i s t e n c yi na ns we r s a mo ngpe o pl e ?I ’ mq ui t ec ur i ous .Ora r ey oun ota l l owed to say? HH: The r e ’ sal i t t l eb i tof. . .s o mec ons i s t e nc ya nds omen ot .It hi nkwh a tI ’ mno t i c i ng i si tve r ymuc hde pe ndsont hep e r s onI ’ mi n t e r v i e wi ng . JD: Sure. HH: Ac t ua l l y ,Ido n’ tt hi nkI ’ mr e a dyy e tt os y nt he s i z ei ti na nyc ohe r e ntwa y . JD: That was bad question! HH: I t ’ sag o odqu e s t i o n,I ’ mj us tn otr e a dyt oa ns we ri ty e t ! JD: I t ’ sana ug h t yq ue s t i on.I ’ mc ur i ou si nt hel e a r ni ng ,j us tl i k ey oua r e .Tha nky ou for doing it too, thank you so much for doing it, and I look forward to seeing what you got in the end. HH: Tha nky ouf ory o ura ppr e c i a t i on ,I ' ml ook i ngf or wa r dt oi tt oo.I t ’ ss uc habi gf i e l d, t ha tI ’ mt r y i ngt og od ownas i mi l a rt r a c kwi t he a c hpe r s on ,s oIc a na n s we ri tf r o m one point of view. Because I get the feeling that if I go down a different track with e a c hpe r s on… JD: You ’ r eg o i ngt og e tt o oma nyd i f f e r e n tvi e wsoni t … HH: Tha t ’ sr i g h t .I t ’ sc ha l l e ng i ng ,a sa l lr e s e a r c hi s ,a l mo s ta tas t r u c t ur a ll e v e l . JD: I t ’ sa l s oun c e r t a i n,wh e t he ri ti sane wf i e l d,ori si tjust a new application? I feel like, for me, I know that process work has branched into new applications about once every five years. A major new application that starts to emerge –it deepens the theory, but it never changes it. I t ’ sne ve rl i k e ,oh ,okay, process oriented coma work is this, and it's completely di f f e r e nta ndy oune e dt ol e a r nane ws e toft he or i e sorane ws e to fs k i l l s .I t ’ st he s a met r a ns f e r a b l es e tofs k i l l s ,s oI ’ mg ui de dbyt ha tt ho ug h twhe nI ’ mdo i ngt hi s work. When I try to thi nka b outwha tI ’ mdo i ngwi t ho r g a ni z a t i on s ,Ig oba c kt o ,ok a y ,i t ’ s an application and what does that mean and how is that an application? Because it j us tl o ok sdi f f e r e nt …t h el a n ds c a p el o ok sdi f f e r e nt .Ma y bet hel a nd s c a pel oo k s more different, and the l a nd s c a pema k e sust h i nkt ha ti t ’ samuc hmor ed i f f e r e n t t hi ng , butId on’ tt h i nki t ’ sa l lt ha tdi f f e r e nt .So,we ’ l ls e et h oug h. What is pOD? 194 Stephen Interview –7/4/07 HH: What kind of organizations do you work with? SS: Wha tk i n dofor g a n i z a t i ons ?I ’ v ewo r k e dwi th fairly small, and mid sized nonpr o f i t s .I ’ vea l s owor k e dwi t hi nt e r na t i ona lno n-profits, such as the United Nations, a ndI ’ v ewo r k e dwi t hs ma l lt omi ds i z ec o l l e g e s ,of t e ni nh e a l t ho r i e nt e da nds o c i a l c ha ng epr o j e c t s ,l i k ena t i vec or p or a t i o ns .I ’ vealso worked for for-profit organizations, ranging from fairly small –mainly where their businesses have grown and they have to manage a number of people –so really small kinds of corporations, to fairly significant corporations, large multi-nationals. HH: And what kind of problems do you work with? SS: Mo s t l yi ts e e mst ha tI ’ mpul l e di nwhe nt he r e ’ se i t he ri ndi vi du a l ,r e l a t i o ns hi p ,t e a m or systems challenges, and mostly they are of an inter-pe r s o na lna t ur e .Sowhe ni t ’ s seen that what is required is a focus on an interpersonal or communication level. Whe t he ri t ’ st e a mbui l di ng ,whe t he ri t ’ sc o nf l i c tr e s o l u t i on ,whe t h e ri t ’ swh ol e or g a ni z a t i ona lc ha ng e , whe t he ri t ’ svi s i on i ngors t r a t e g i cp l a nni ng .Sot hos ea r et he k i ndo ft hi ng s .Wh e t he ri t ’ sade e p e ni ngofi nt e r pe r s o na li n t e r a c t i o nst h a t ’ s required between people. So it seems to be mostly in the communications sphere t ha tI ’ v ebe e np ul l e di n .I ’ v ea l s obe e nb r oug hti nf ors k i l lde ve l op me nta nd diversity work –so again, interpersonal work. HH: So when you say interpersonal work, does some of that include conflict resolution? SS: Conf l i c tr e s o l ut i o ni s n’ tr e a l l yt her i g htwo r df orme–i t ’ sr e a l l ybe g i nni ngt o facilitate conflict and unfold it. Frequently in organizations, conflict is underground.Sowhe nIg oi n t oa no r g a n i z a t i on ,of t e nt he r e ’ sat e ns i on ,t he r ea r e symptoms. For example, you get this huge attrition in organizations, or you get tensions or problems or gossip in the office. Those are some of the symptoms that are indicative of troubles. Or you get unhappiness, people not showing up for me e t i ng s ,t ha tk i ndofr e pr e s e nt a t i o n.I t ’ st h ek i ndoft hi ngwhe r et heor g a ni z a t i on k n owsi t ’ si nt r ou bl e ,b uti tdoe s n ’ tk n owhowt oa c c e s si t .Andt ha t ’ sf r e q ue n t l y when I get called in. Or when an organization wants to develop further. HH: Develop, develop economically? SS: Well, the way I frame it is really important –i t ’ si nt e r e s t i ng ,be c a us eor g a ni z a t i ons these days have the whole idea of the triple bottom line. So mostly the framing is that it does impact the bottom line, but it might not always impact finances. It might impact people in the organization, it might impact the social realm that the organization is involved in. So the way I would frame it depends on the orientation and motivation of bringing me in. SoIdo n’ tc a r eh owIwor kwi t hpe o pl e ,t hemo s ti mpor t a n tt hi ngi st h a tp e opl ea r e worked with, and that people are happier in organizations. What I know about that is that if people are happier they are more productive and mor ee f f e c t i ve .Sot h a t ’ s wha tI ’ mi nt e r e s t e di nc ul t i va t i ng .An di ft he yh a vebe e nmor ee f f e c t i vet he nof What is pOD? 195 course financially that impacts the organization too –t he yma kemor emone y .I ’ m happy to frame it anyway people want! HH: That makes sense. And when you say you get pulled in for individual relationships and team challenges, are there any sort of challenges that seem to come up over and over again? SS: Well, there are a number of factors that are really interesting in relationship to Process Work. One of the things that typically comes up in organization, is rank pr o bl e ms .Andi tc ome swhe nt he r e ’ save r ys t r ong ,f r e q ue n t l ya u t h or i t a r i a ns t y l e , oras t y l et ha tdo e s n’ tl i kee xpr e s s i ono fp e opl et ha ta r edi r e c tr e p or t st ot he manager. So, sometimes unconsciousness of relative power that is held within the organization becomes problematic. Sot h a t ’ son eoft h et y p i c a lt hi ng st h a tha ppe n s ,a ndoneo ft hef r e qu e nte dge sI come across is people being able to communicate directly to their managers. Th a t ’ s j us toneoft hee dg e st h a t ’ sr e a l l yve r yc ommon . HH: Yes. Are there others? SS: Well, there are a number of major themes that happen in organization. There is f r e qu e nt l yg e nde ri s s u e s ,i nt heba c kg r ou nd, t he r e ’ sf r e que nt l yd i v e r s i t yi s s ue s ,no t necessarily only around race –sexual orientation, of course gender, as I just me n t i on e d.You’ l lg e ti s s ue sofhomo pho bi a–I ’ vewor k e dwi t hor g a n i z a t i o ns around homophobia. Also work-life balance, is a huge issue in organizations. What are the other themes? Then it starts specializing depending on the or g a ni z a t i oni t s e l f .I tc oul db eb e c a u s et h e r e ’ sama na g e rwhoi spr ob l e ma t i c ,ora n e xe c ut i vec r e a t e st r oub l e .Eve ni fy o ug e tr i doft hei ndi vi d ua l ,y o u’ ves t i l lg ott o work through that process with the organization. Another one that typically occurs, is where one group in the organization feels ma r g i na l i z e d,whe t h e ri t ’ sbe c a u s et he yha v el o we rr a nk–they have this role which is less recognized, and they feel under-appreciated, because they come from a marginalized group –or because they might have a different nationality. I had an interesting situation with a different nationality. It was an organization where a significant and highly educated section of the organization was actually brought from another country, because of their expertise. And they always felt terribly ma r g i na l i z e d,b e c a us et he i rEng l i s hwa s n’ tv e r yf l u e nta ndt he yha dt r oub l e communicating with students. And the way of thinking of the United States was different to their own wa yo ft hi nk i ng .Ands ot he ywe r e n’ ta ppr e c i a t e da nd recognized. Bringing out that kind of marginalization issue is important. The issues then start to spread out, depending on the actual organization themselves. The toolkit, that I use, in terms of process work, that I find really important is: One, awareness of rank. Two, awareness of roles and ghost roles – f r e qu e nt l y ,t hi ng st ha ta r e n ’ te xpr e s s e dg e tma r g i n a l i z e d,a ndt he yg e thi dd e na nd they manifest in terms of ghosts. The third one, that is super important, is edges. And edges are constellated around issues, but there are also personal edges, and ma nype op l ewh og oi nt oma na g e me n tpo s i t i on so f t e nd on’ ti de nt i f ywi t ht he i r What is pOD? 196 power or have the ability to communicate effectively that power, so there are often communication edges that are present in organizations. HH: Whi l ey o u’ r et a l k i nga boutt h e‘ t oo l k i t ’ ,l e tmea s k , whe ny o ug oi nt oa n organization, do you tend to think about what the primary structure of the organization is and what the secondary structure is? Do you think in those sort of terms? SS: Abs o l u t e l y ,I ’ l lbe g i nt oa d dr e s spr i ma r ya n ds e c on da r yf r omanumbe rofa r e a s . From the organizational chart –often if there are problems in the organization, they can be indicated through an organizational chart. For example if you look at many educational institutions, they have two functions, they have an administrative function and they have a programs or educational function, and those two often have a huge amount of tension. So if you havea no r g a ni z a t i onwh i c hd oe s n ’ tha v ea combining body of someone who is able to hold the diversity of both of those, it be c ome spr ob l e ma t i ca ndon eb e g i nst oa t t e mptt os e r v et h eo t h e r .Tha t ’ sf r e que n t l y apr ob l e mI ’ vec omeupwi t h.Sod e pe n di ngont h es t ructure of the organizational s y s t e m, t h eor g a n i z a t i o na ls t r u c t u r e ,y ou’ r eg oi ngt og e tp r obl e ms . And there are just classic OD issues. For example direct reports –s ome t i me sI ’ l lg o i n,t hee xe c u t i vei sove r wh e l me d.I ’ l la s kt h e mwhyt he ya r eove r whe l me d,and t he y ’ l ls a yt he ya r eno ts ur e .The nIf i ndt ha tt he yha vet hi r t e e norf o ur t e e ndi r e c t r e po r t s .Is a y ,“ we l lIun de r s t a nd ,y o uror g a n i z a t i ona lc ha r tne e d sc ha ng i ng” .I n ot he rwor d s ,i t ’ sonas y s t e mi cl e ve lt ha tt h ec ha ng ene e dst oo c c ur . Tha t ’ so net hing. The second thing is that when I go into an organization, issues are constellated around primary and secondary processes, so the whole system itself is g o i ngt oh a veapr i ma r ya n ds e c on da r yi de n t i t y ,a ndi t ’ sg o i ngt oha veamy t hwh i c h is often connected to the primary identity of the organization. HH: I nt e r e s t i ngy o us a yt ha ti t ’ sof t e nc on ne c t e dt ot hepr i ma r yi de n t i t y . SS: Yes, frequently I think the myth is connected to the primary, especially when they get into trouble. What happens is they create a myth, and the organization is s up por t e da n di t ’ sunf o l de da c c o r di ngt ot ha tmy t h.The nt heor g a ni z a t i onbe g i nst o change and the myth still is the background figure that is followed and the question is then how to change that, how to change the vision and strategy of the organization? Then tensions occur when that myth begins to change. That frequently occurs in founding organization, when there is an original founder of an organization. HH: Fur t h e rd owni nt hei n t e r vi e wSt e phe n,I ’ l la s ky oua b outs ome of the steps of pr o c e s sor i e nt e dOD,s owemi g htg oo ve rs omeofwha ty ou ’ vej u s tt a l k e da bou t some more then. SS: Sure. HH: So ,I ’ ms t i l lf i nd i ngouta bo utt hes o r tofwor ky o udowi t ho r g a ni z a t i on s .Wha ti s your role? How is it defined from their side and how would you define yourself? SS: We l lt ha t ’ sr e a l l yi mpo r t a n t .Be f or eIg oi n t oa nor g a n i z a t i o n,Iwa ntt ok nowwha t myr ol ei s .AndIa l s owa ntt ok nowwhoha sb oug hti na n dwhos eh a s n’ tboug hti n . What is pOD? 197 Somyr o l ei sa c t ua l l yf l ui d,a n di t ’ sdi c t a t e d–i t ’ db en i c ei fIc oul ddi c t a t ei ta l lt he t i me ,bu te v e ni fIwe r et od i c t a t ei t ,i tdo e s n’ tne c e s s a r i l yme a nt h a ti t ’ sa c c e pt e da s t ha t .Soi t ’ sve r y , ve r yi mpor t a n t , i ng oi ngi nt oa no r g a ni z a t i on ,t or e a l l yi de nt i f y what your clear intent is. Else you can easily get set-up –to really fulfill a role which is not what you anticipated. So, before I go into an organization, I often talk to the people that are employing me and I want to find out exactly what they are wanting me to do. And then get a sense of how I would operate within that, and then I have to find out how much buy-in they have for it. HH: So if someone is asking you to work for them, do they think of you as a facilitator, a c on s ul t a nt …? SS: We l l ,i tde pe ndswha tI ’ mg oi ngi nf or .So me t i me sI ’ l lg oi na sat r a i ne r , s ome t i me s I ’ l lg oi na sac oa c h.Some t i me sI ’ mg o i ngt og oi na saf a c i l i t a t o r .Some t i me sI ’ m going to go in as an expert in conflict resolution. HH: Oka y .Doe st ha tc ove rmo s toft hedi f f e r e nt‘ ha t s ’ ,s ot os pe a ky oumi g ht have on? SS: I ’ veof t e nc omei na sas y s t e ma na l y s tt oo ,whe r eI ’ ml o ok i nga tt hes t r a t e gi e s .I ’ l l ha v eal o oka ts t r a t e g i cc h a ng e .Ma y bevi s i oni ngt o wa r d sas t r a t e g i cpl a n .SoI ’ l l often help with that kind of structure. Not often, I have. HH: And, have you done work in a situation where one person has brought you on board a ndt h e ny ou ’ vewor k e dwi t ht hewhol et e a m? SS: Yes. HH: How have you been introduced in that situation? SS: Often, because the team knows the one person is bringing me in to work with them, wha tI ’ l la t t e mptt odoi sc on ne c twi t ha sma nyt e a mme mbe r sa spo s s i b l e ,be c a us e if one person brings me in, and they are not on board, they are going to come after me in the meeting and see me as allied with the other person. So if I come into a s y s t e m, a ndI ’ mi n t r o duc e dbyonepe r s on ,Iwa ntt oma k es ur et he r e ’ st h es pa c et o c r e a t et ha ts t r u c t ur e ,e s pe c i a l l yi fi t ’ sat e a mme e t i ng .I ’ l lt r ya ndi nt r od uc emy s e l f , at least to a few people, beforehand, but in particular the ones I perceive to be pr o bl e ma t i c .Sof ore xa mpl e ,i fI ’ mi nv i t e di nbyama n a g e r , a nds h eha ss pe c i f i c problems, or he has specific problems with one of the direct reports, I want to go to that direct report. And the most important thing is the direct report feels that they can trust me sufficiently to be able to come to the meeting. HH: Okay. And then when you get to the meeting, and you get introduced to the group, what sort of labels do they give you as the person, when they are introducing you. SS: Well, it actually de p e ndsonmyf u nc t i ona g a i n.I fI ’ mc omi ngi nt or e s ol ve c on f l i c t ,t h e nI ’ mac o nf l i c tr e s ol ut i onf a c i l i t a t o r .I fI ’ vec omei nt owor kt owa r d t he i rs t r a t e g i cp l a n ,t he nI ’ mt he r et of a c i l i t a t evi s i o ni ngt owa r d ss t r a t e gy .Soi t really depends on the sit ua t i onI ’ veb e e ni nvi t e di nf or .Cons i s t e nt l yi t ’ si nt h e communication realm. HH: So what do they call you then? A communications expert? SS: A consultant. Often I come in as a consultant. And I consult in different places. What is pOD? 198 HH: How long does your work normally go for? SS: I td e pe n dsonwha ti sn e e de d.Id on’ tha veat i mes pe c i f i cr o l e .Unl e s sIc omei n specifically for that –for example, if I come in to do training for three days, about group facilitation. In large corporations, sometimes OD departments will see me do s t uf f ,a n ds a y ,“ he y ,wewa ntt olearn this stuff, can you please show us so we can r e a l l ys e ehowwec a na ppl yi ti nt h eor g a n i z a t i o n” .The ni t ’ st i mes pe c i f i c . I fI ’ mwor k i ngi nag r o up, t h e nI ’ l la l l o c a t et i me st ha tIc omeov e r .Like for the Uni t e dNa t i o ns ,I ’ l lc omeov e rf orawe e k ,a ndI ’ l lb ea va i l a bl ef ort h a tt i me .So t he ni t ’ sc o nt a i ne dbyt h et i meofmyvi s i t .Bu ti nt e r mso fmyo n-going connection wi t ha nor g a n i z a t i o n,i t ’ sr e a l l yop e n.I tde pe ndsonwh a ti sr e qui r e d.SoId on’ t c l os ei to f f , a nds a y“ he yno wI ’ mdo ne ” .I ’ l ls a y ,“ h owa r ewed oi ng , wha tne e d s t oha p pe nno w? ” ,a ndof t e nt he ni twi l lt he nbe c omeac ombi na t i ono fe xe c ut i ve coaching as well as group facilitation. So Ido n’ th a veas pe c i f i ct ha ts a y s ,“ I ’ mhe r ef or5da y s ” .I ’ l ls a y“ I ’ mc omi ngi n , we ’ l ldos o mewor k , we ’ l ls e ehowi tg o e sa ndwe ’ l le va l ua t e ” .Tha t ’ swha tI ’ ve s a i d, a ndpe opl eha ves a i d,“ he yc omea nddomo r e ” ,a n dI ’ v es a i d,“ c he c kmeo ut , s e ewha tI ’ ml i k e , i fy o ur e a l l yl i kewha tI ’ md oi ngl e t ’ sd omor e , i fno tl e t ’ sc l o s ei t do wn” . HH: If you think back over the last, say 3 or 4 years of work, and you think of the di f f e r e ntor g a ni z a t i o nsy o u’ vewor ke dwi t h, doe st het i mey ou ’ vewor ke dwi t h them go anywhere from one afternoon to years?. SS: We l lt he r ea r es omeor g a ni z a t i onst ha tI ’ v es pe n ty e a r swi t h,t ha tI ’ vec omeb a c k regularly. They have retreats for all their members. I ’ mt hi nk i ngo fami d-sized non-profit, with maybe 150 members, and they have retreats, and they invite me back r e g ul a r l yonay e a r l yb a s i s .AndI ’ vewor k e done xe c ut i vec oa c hi ngwi t ha number of the staff members. I ’ vebe e ni ns ma l lt e a mme e t i ng s ,a ndI ’ vebe e ni n r e g u l a rmo nt hl yme e t i ngs , of50or60pe opl e .Sot he y ’ vep ul l e dmeba c kf o ry e a r s on that basis. Butnowt he ydo n’ tn e e dmea ny mor e .The y ’ vei nt e g r a t e dt hemod e l .The f e e d ba c kIj us tg otf r omt hep r e s i d e nti sr e a l l yni c e , be c a u s eIc o ul dn’ tma kea me e t i ngbe c a us eIwa st e a c hi ng ,t hema s t e r ’ spr og r a mme .And ,t he ywe r es a dt o miss me, and were worried about it –they got another facilitator who they said di dn ’ tdoav e r yg oo dj o b,b utt h eg r oupwa ss og oodt he yp ul l e dt h ef a c i l i t a t orwi t h them! HH: Tha t ’ sa ma z i ng . SS: Theme e t i ngwa sg r e a t ,be c a u s et heg r oupwa sa b l et odoi tnow.Sot h a t ’ s particula r l ywha tI ’ mh opi ngf o r .Tha tt heg r ou pi nt e g r a t e ss uf f i c i e nt l y ,t obea b l e to do the work without me being there. Which I think is really a sign of good facilitation, when you become dispensable. HH: Tha t ’ swo nde r f u l !Good . What is pOD? 199 Okay, I might move us now to the second question, which is how would you define process oriented organizational development? So if I was to read it on a flyer, what would it say, for example? SS: How would I define process oriented organizational development? The problem with OD, is OD is so broad. So when you say process oriented OD I think I can only say what is a process oriented approach, and then apply it to the area of OD that would be applicable. So I think I have a problem with the question, because OD comprises so much stuff. You know what I mean? SoI ’ ds a y ,t hepr o c e s sor i e nt e da p pr oa c h,me a ns ,f o rme , t h a t… Ih a vet hebe l i e f that the wisdom of change lies within the group itself, and it lies in the ability – should I use Process Work terms here or should I just speak more broadly? HH: If you can speak more broadly that would be great. SS: Okay. It lies in the ability of the group to embrace the diversity of the voices, in the group as meaningful. So process oriented facilitation, process oriented OD would be the method of awakening organization systems and groups within those organization, towards a deeper recognition of the value of the differences within the organization and begin to work with those differences in a way that actually enriches and enhances the orga ni z a t i on .Th a t ’ soneoft h ea s pe c t sofi t . HH: Andi nPr o c e s sWo r kt e r ms ,y ou ’ r et a l k i nga bou tde e pde mo c r a c yr i g ht ? SS: Ye s ,o fc o ur s e .I nPr oc e s sWor kt e r ms… s opr oc e s so r i e n t e dODwo r kwoul d i nc l ud ei d e a sofde e pd e moc r a c y ,t he y ’ di n c l udei de a so fe l de r s hi p,t he y ’ di nc l ud e ideas of wisdom in the group, include ideas that those who have power frequently, are not as conscious of the ways they use it as those who have less power, and that that feedback is often imperative for effective leadership. So those are some of the ideas that I would work with around a process oriented OD model. HH: Are there others as well? SS: Yes, the model also ascribes leadership as a fluid process which is role based rather than individually based. And that frequently leaders and wisdom in the group does not necessarily come from the ostensible leader, but can easily come from someone, who might not appear to have so much overt rank in the organization, or overt authority in the organization. And that change is frequently ongoing in groups and organization systems, and the ability to recognize change is critical to the ongoing development of the organization. So for example, if you look at many organizations, where there is a lack of recognition of the ideas of primary and secondary in the organization –in other words what is wanting to evolve and emerge in the organization –i ft he r e ’ sal a c k of recognition of that which wants to emerge in the organization, the organization gets stuck. For example, many, many cultures, in the United States at least, and probably everywhere in the world, believe that in order for people to stay in or g a ni z a t i onst he yh a vet obehi g h l yc ompe t e n t .Sot he r e ’ sahug ea moun to f pressure of competence in many organizations. The result is that whe ny oudo n’ t feel competent in an area, you are unable to express that in the organization, which means all that sense of incompetence goes underground, and the whole What is pOD? 200 organization, instead of being a learning organization, where people grow and develop and learn new things, has to be a competency based organization. Can you s e ewha tI ’ ms a y i ng ? HH: Yes. SS: Sot h a tt heor g a ni z a t i onst he ng e ts t uc ki nc o mpe t e n c y ,a ndwhe npe op l ed on’ t k n ow,t he yd on’ ta dmi ti t .Andt he n,t y p i c a l l ywhe ny oud on’ tk no wa n d are stuck in having to know, there is only one way out, and that is to leave at some point in time –or to hide your mistakes. Then you get huge attrition in organizations. On the front they are highly competent, but in the background, all of the places that t he ya r ef a i l i ngorwe a ka r e n ’ ta dd r e s s e d.Be c a us eoft hei n a bi l i t yt ode a lwi t h anything but competency. So you can see an organization actually thrives and develops, through beginning to unfold that, which is not accepted within the primary culture of the organization. In that situation, competency, is primary. That whi c hi snota c c e p t e dwoul dbep l a c e swed on’ tkno w,wea r ee xpl or i ng ,wea r e uncertain about, and yet those are the very things that are exciting about organizations, in terms of their growth. HH: Yes. Great!! If you were to come into an organization and work for one or two days with them, would you call that doing organizational development work with them? SS: I td e pe n dswha tI ’ mdo i n g .I fIc omei na n dI ’ m wo r k i ngwi t hawho l et eam, sure! I ’ ma s s i s t i ngt he mf o roneort woda y s–t h a t ’ sp l e nt yoft i me .It hi nkc ha ng e sc a n ha p pe nr e a l l yqu i c k l y ,Ido n’ tt hi nkt he ya r et i meba s e d.Sur e .Soi tde pe ndson what you are doing. You can come into an organization and teach them someth i ng ,a n dt ha t ’ sn otq ui t e or g a ni z a t i onc ha ng ewor k .Yout e a c ht he ms ome t hi nga ndl e a ve ,i tdoe s n ’ t ne c e s s a r i l yme a nt ha tt h e r e ’ sa nyc h a ng eorr e a lde v e l opme n ti nt heor g a ni z a t i on. I t ’ sj us ti n f or ma t i on, whe r e a sy o uc a ng oi nt oa nor g a ni z a t i on ,a n dwor kwith the system to change it, and you can be there for two hours. I went into an organizational meeting for two hours, and I felt, 9 months later, they were still talking about the meeting. HH: Right. SS: So you can really create significant change very quickly. HH: This might be an impossible question, but how can we measure the change, or how you felt there was actually a change. SS: You know, most change that happens in organizations is hard to measure, especially on a people oriented level –i t ’ sv e r ys ubj e c t i ve .An ds omos tc ha ng eI ’ veg oti s through feedback. Which is really a change that we often have, you know for example, at the Process Work Institute. You know, you ask people, how were the classes and you get a sense of feedback. So feedback seems to be one of the most effective ways –asking people how they found it is often an effective way of e va l u a t i ng .Be c a u s et h e r e ’ snomot i va t i on–i fy oua r eac on s ul t a ntt h e ydon ’ tha ve What is pOD? 201 t os a yi twa sg r e a t .The r e ’ sl e s smot i va t i ont or e por tpos i t i vely. So people can be brutally honest. HH: Ge t t i ngpos i t i vef e e db a c ki so net hi ng… SS: Wha ta r et heo t h e rt hi ng s ?We l l ,t ha t ’ st h ee xt e r na lwa yofdoi ngi t .Thei nt e r na l way –I ’ mi n t e r e s t e di ne dg ec h a ng e s .I not he rwor ds , wh e nIg oi nt oa n organization, I recognize the primary and secondary issues in the organization, and as the organization goes over the edge, you begin to feel palpably, the system begins to change. And so I can measure it through a recognition of transition to secondary process int heor g a ni z a t i o n.Andf r e q ue n t l yi tt a k e st i me .Some t i me si t ’ s qu i c k ,a n ds ome t i me sI ’ venot i c e dp e opl eha vet owo r kt h a te dg eove ra ndov e r again until it becomes fully integrated. SoI ’ ven ot i c e di nor g a n i z a t i o na ls y s t e ms ,whe r et h e r e ’ sbe e na ne dg e… f o r example in the example I gave earlier, of being direct with a manager or someone who has high rank. Someone has eventually got over that edge –initially there were symptoms that there were problems in that organization, and eventually someone went over the edge and actually spoke directly. There was this deadly stillness in the group –because they were afraid the person would get fired, for t a l k i ngdi r e c t l y .Thepe r s o ndi dn ’ tg e tf i r e d ,a n dy e tno-one else went over the edge. And 6 months later, at another meeting, I encouraged them to work further, and a whole lot of people went and spoke directly to many managers in the group. And you could see the system change that began to occur. People were able to communicate directly with managers, there was a sense of realness in the i nt e r a c t i ons , ma na g e r swe r ec ha l l e ng e dwhe r et he ywe r e n’ te f f e c t i ve .The ya c t ua l l y picked up the feedback in group, and you could see a change from repression to really fluid communication in the organization. HH: Wonderful. So one definition of organizational change in a nutshell might be, as you said before, that transition to secondary process in the organization? SS: Whe nt he r e ’ sat r a ns i t i o nf r o mt hep r i ma r yt ot hes e c o nda r yi de nt i t ywi t hi nt he organizational system. –I ’ ds a yt h a t ’ sac l e a rde f i ni t i onf ormeofor g a n i z a t i o na l change. Absolutely. HH: Tha t ’ sg r e a t .Ik nowI ’ vene v e ra c t ua l l yt h oug hta bou ti ti nt he s et e r msbe f or e . SS: I t ’ sa b s ol ut e l ya ndi t ’ ss y s t e mi c .Andf r e que nt l y ,t hewho l eo r g a ni z a t i on a ls c e ne c on s t e l l a t e sa r ou ndpr i ma r ya n ds e c on da r yi de n t i t i e s ,a ndt ha t ’ swhypi c k i ngu pt h e disturbers in a way, is really helpful, because it presses the group to edges. HH: Yes. SS: But the first step frequently is to be able to bring out the ghost roles. And those things that are felt but not said within the organization. And check whether those things are safe to come out. If they are not safe to come out, then you have to address the safety issues first. Otherwise, after a day in the organization, a whole l oto fp e op l ea r ef i r e d,wh i c hy oud on’ twa nt .Fr e q ue nt l y , a sIa p pr oa c ha n organizational system, the first things I have to determine, are what are the various edge figures, that will stop people from actually coming out and expressing what ghosts are present? And often I will, as the facilitator, talk to those edge figures. What is pOD? 202 HH: Okay. SS: Sof o re xa mpl e … HH: In a group process? SS: I nag r ou ppr oc e s s ,a bs o l ut e l y ,I ’ ds a y ,be c a us eIha ver a nka saf a c i l i t a t or ,a n dI have to hold the group. So if there ’ sawh ol el o to ft e ns i oni nt heg r o up,a ndIk now f r omt a l k i ngt oi n di vi du a l st ha tt he r e ’ sa ne dg et ob edi r e c t ,bu tt he ya r ea f r a i d because of an edge figure that says they are going to get fired if they talk directly, t he nIwoul dt a l kt ot h a t .An dI ’ ds a y ,“ y ouk now,oneoft her e a s on sIi ma g i ne f ol k swon’ tt a l k ,i sbe c a us ey oumi g htg e tf i r e di fy oudot a l k .I st ha tc or r e c t ? ” . Yous e e ,be c a us et ha twon’ tg e ty ouf i r e d.Thene xtlevel, with what you say, will get you fired. So that discussion needs to be had, before you can go to the next level. HH: Yes. SS: Sof r e q ue n t l yI ’ l lbe g i nt oa ddr e s st hos ec o nc e r n s .Whe t he rt h ec onc e r ns ,byt h e wa y , a r eoft h eme mbe r si nt h eg r oupormy s e l f .SoI ’ veha dg r oup st h a tha ves a i d, “ he y ,y ou’ r ei nt h epr e s i de n t ’ spo c k e t ,t h e ya r epa y i ngy ou ,Id on’ tt r u s ty ou. ”An d I ’ vea c t ua l l ys t oodu pi nf r o nto fag r o upof10 0pe op l e ,a n ds a i d ,“ Ihe a r dt h i s g o s s i p ” ,a n dt he nop e ne di touta sag hos t .Andt he na ns we r e dt heg hos t .I ’ ves a i d t ot h eg r oup ,“ Ihe a rt ha tf ol k s ,s omef ol k smi g htf e e lt ha tI ’ mnotf u l l yt r us t wor t hy , be c a us eIha veaf r i e nd s hi pwi t ht hepr e s i d e nt .Iwa n tt ot e l ly o ut h a t ’ st r ue .Ia l s o want to let you know, that my job here, is to support the facilitation and the development of the whole community. And, please check me out around that. If I do n’ ts u ppo r tt hedi ve r s i t yoft h er ol e si nt heg r o up, a ndIdon ’ te nc our a g et h a tt o ha p pe n ,I ’ mn og oo df ory ou .Pl e a s el e tmek now, Iwa n tt og r owa ndde ve l o pi f t ha t ’ st h ec a s e ,a ndi fIc a n’ ts upp or ty ou, pl e a s ef i r eme . ”Andt ha twa st h ee ndof the issue. HH: Yes. SS: Is a i df i r eme ,I ’ mnog oodf o ry o ui ft ha t ’ st h ec a s e . HH: Did you check in with them again at the end, or it just never came up? SS: The ybe a me d,a ndt he yc l a ppe df o rme .Tha t ’ swhat happened. They beamed, they s a i d, “ l i s t e n ,y o u’ r ef a nt a s t i c ,t ha nky ous omu c h,wea r ewa t c hi ngy ourba c k” .I s a i d, “ In e e dy o u.I fImi s ss ome t hi ng ,Ine e dy out owa kemeup .Pl e a s ewa k eme up ,Iwa ntt og r o w. ”Andt he yf e l tl i k eIwa spa r to ft he m. It was actually a fantastic intervention. HH: Wonderful. Thel a s tqu e s t i on, a ndIt h i n kt h i si squi t eabi gone , a l t h oug hwe ’ vea l r e a dyf i l l e di n a lot of that –what are the steps of process oriented OD? What does it look like from the moment contact is made between you and the organization, and when you leave the project? SS: Nowt hepr ob l e mi s ,t heq ue s t i oni st o obr oa da g a i n,i tde pe ndsonwh a ty ou’ ve been called in to do. What is pOD? 203 HH: Well, would you like to maybe do it as a case study? Do you want to pick one or g a ni z a t i ont ha ty ou ’ vewor k e dwi t h,a ndwe ’ l lgot h r o ug ht hes t e p swi t ht ha t particular organization? SS: Su r e .I ’ mg oi ngt opr ot e c tt heor g a ni z a t i on, butI ’ l lg i vey out h ec a s es t u dyofon e organization. The organization knew of me and called me up and invited me to do a residential retreat with all the staff members. HH: Can just tell me a little about the organization, without telling me who they are? SS: I t ’ sano n-profit, educationally based organization. HH: About how big? SS: The number of people working in the organization is about 150. My initial contact was through someone in the organization who had seen me teach, a ndt h e yt h oug htI ’ db ef a nt a s t i ca tf a c i l i t a t i ngt hi sme e t i ng ,a ndt he r e f o r ei nv i t e d me to come into the meeting. I then wanted to know a number of key members who ’ db ea tt ha tme e t i ng ,a ta l ll e ve l soft h eo r g a ni z a t i on .Ic o nt a c t e dp e opl ea bo ut 15 people, to interview them to know what was present in the system. This was going to be a large group meeting of about 100 people for about 3 or 4 hours for a number of days. So I want to know exactly what was present, so I came totally prepared. HH: Did you have a set of questions that you asked each of the 15 people every time? SS: No. I had an internal framework of what I was looking for. My tendency, when I i nt e r vi e w,i snott oa s ks pe c i f i cque s t i on s .I ’ ml ook i ngf orwha ta r et h eba c k g r ou nd tensions, conflicts and processes, that I think are going to be present when I go and facilitate. I want to know about the organizatio n.Fo rt hi sor g a n i z a t i o nIdi d n’ t ha v et o ,bu ts o meor g a ni z a t i on ,f ore xa mpl ewi t ht heUni t e dNa t i o ns ,I ’ dr e a da bou t t he m.SoI ’ dg oa ndr e a da smuc ha sIc oul d ,Iwa ntt he mt os e n dmei n f o r ma t i o n,I wa ntt ok no we xa c t l ywha t ’ sg oi ngon .Somyp r e pa r a tion actually takes a lot of time. HH: Can I slow us down a little bit? SS: Sure. HH: If you imagine I was one of the 15 people that you spoke to, can you give me an example of how you might frame some of the questions? SS: I ’ ds a y ,“ I ’ mc omi ngi nt ot heorganization, to facilitate this meeting. I really appreciate you giving me this time. What would be really helpful for me, is to get a sense of what you anticipate will be important for me to know in coming in, and what you imagine are the areas we should focus on during the meeting. I want to make this meeting as useful as possible for you, so I really need your help with t hi s . ” HH: Okay, so you might start with that, probably something like that with all 15, and then take it from there. What is pOD? 204 SS: And then the y ’ l ls a yn ot hi ng !The nI ’ l ls a y ,“ Iu nde r s t a n di t ’ sr e a l l yha r d,buti t ’ s i mpor t a n tf orme ,wh a tdoy out hi nk ? ” .Andt he nt h e y ’ l lb eve r yva g ue ,a ndt he y of t e nwi l lc he c kmeout .I ’ l la l s ot e l lt he m, i t ’ sa bs o l u t e l yc onf i de n t i a l .The problem with telli ngp e op l ei t ’ sc o nf i de n t i a li s , howdot he yk nowi ti s ?Ands ot hi s is something you develop in an organization over time, a sense of trust. Initially y oumi g htnotha vei t ,buto ve rt i mey o u’ l lde ve l opi t . HH: So in that first interview, even though youha ve n’ tn e c e s s a r i l ye s t a bl i s he dt he r e l a t i o ns hi p ,y o u’ r eg e t t i nge noug hi nf or ma t i ona bou twha ts omeoft het e ns i on s might be. SS: And you are cultivating relationship. I remember in this particular organization, an executive director had invited me into the meeting. And I wanted to speak to a number of people. I spoke to the president, who I knew would be present. And I asked him about his philosophy, of the organization. I also want to know what I ha v epe r mi s s i ont odo.I ’ mno ti nt e r e s t e di ns e t t i ng up a philosophy or approach, which is against the organizational system. So ,f ore xa mpl e ,i fI ’ mc o mi ngi n t oa nor g a n i z a t i o nwhi c hi sh i e r a r c hi c a l l yba s e d , a ndt h e yr e a l l yd on’ twa nta nyf e e d ba c k–say a military based system –the military based system essentially says, you obey commands –if I give an instruction you do i t , j us tb e c a u s eI ’ mt hea ut ho r i t y .Ri g h t ?Nowi fIc omei na ndIs a y ,“ we l lI ’ dl i k e t og e tf e e db a c kf r omt h epe r s onwh oi sun de r ne a t hy ou ,y o urdi r e c tr e p or t ” ,t ha t ’ s against the system. SoIne e dt ok nowwha tI ’ mg oi ngi nt o, s oIc a ns e ewhe t he rIc a na c t ua l l yf a c i l i t a t e that kind of scene, and whether facilitation is the thing that is needed from that organization. Do you know what I mean? So I need to check what my usefulness wi l lbe .An di ns o meoft h os eor g a n i z a t i o ns ,ma y bet he r e ’ se v e na ne dg et ob ee ve n more clear, and more direct with your feedback. And so maybe the edges will not be towards openness, but towards directness and clarity. SoI ’ mi nt e r e s t e de s s e n t i a l l y–this is a redefining, you might have to go right back to the beginning –so my deepest interest is in following the process of the organization. So for me organizational development consulting, is actually following the process of the organization, and helping it unfold into its next place. Tha t ’ sr e a l l ywha ti ti s .I tmi g h tbed e e pde moc r a c y ,bu ti tmi g h tno t .Some or g a ni z a t i onss ho ul dn’ tbede e pl yde moc r a t i c .Somyj obi sa c t ua l l yt oh ol dt he deep democracy inside me, rather than imposing it on the org a ni z a t i o n.SoI ’ v e changed my mind about what I said earlier. Talking about it makes it clearer actually. HH: Soy ou’ v ea ns we r e d‘ howwo ul dy oude f i nepr oc e s so r i e nt e dOD’ ? SS: Tha t ’ sr i g h t , f ol l owi ngt hepr oc e s sofa no r g a n i z a t i o na ndhe l p i ngi tunf o l dinto its next place HH: Did you want to say a few more sentences about that? SS: No, no, wec a nc on t i nu e ,t ha t ’ sa l l .I t ’ sj u s tt ha tI ’ mi nt e r e s t e di nt hee me r g i ng process of an organization, rather than how I think an organization should be. What is pOD? 205 HH: Okay, gr e a t .Al lr i g h t , s oy o u’ vec on duc t e d15i nt e r vi e wsors o,wi t hs omeoft he pe o pl ewhowi l lbea tt h eme e t i ng ,t os e ewha t ’ si nt hea t mos ph e r e… SS: I ’ mi n t e r e s t e dt os e ewh e t he rmy s e l fa ndt heor g a ni z a t i onc a nwo r kwe l lt og e t he r . AndI ’ mi n t e r e s t e di nwhat the issues are and I want to prepare. So I cultivate a s e n s eo fp r e pa r e d ne s s .Onc eI ’ vec ul t i v a t e dapr e pa r e d ne s si nt heor g a n i z a t i o n,t he next step is to go in. And often the format is either chosen by me, or I collaborate with the choosers. In this specific case study, the format was already chosen. I was invited into the organization to facilitate this large group work. They had different activities, and this was one of them, and I came in and facilitated the group regularly. We had a number of h otmome nt s .Oneoft hee dg e swhi c hc a meu pi son eI ’ v e mentioned earlier, where the executive director at that time, had been quite authoritarian, and people were afraid to speak out. The executive director, by the way, was absent from that meeting. HH: He was absent? SS: The president was there, and some of his direct reports were there, but the executive di r e c t orwa s n’ tt h e r e .Andh e ’ dc ho s e nnott obet he r e .Andt ha twa sf i n ewi t hme . We used his role as a ghost. And someone else picked up his role at different times, and the meeting was remarkable. One person, who had been asked to leave the organization, stood up and confronted this role. The role was taken by a direct report who had been involved in the firing, and a profoundly deep and touching discussion occurred. With the actual manager apologizing –it was quite remarkable –a ndr e c og ni z i ngwhe r et he y ’ dma deami s t a k e .I twa squi t e remarkable. And the whole organization changed from that. After that, I was pulled into meetings with the president –the president liked what I was doing –so I began to work directly with the president. I began to work directly with the executive director, and went to a number of team meetings, small meetings, 4, 6, 10 people, and worked ongoing with the organization, both on a coaching and a team level. And then I was also asked to come back for a number of meetings with the larger group of people –not quite 100 or 150, but maybe 40 or 50 people. HH: That first meeting you spoke about, where you were asked to facilitate the large g r ou p,t heo newhe r et hee xe c ut i vedi r e c t orwa s n’ tt h e r e–how many people were present at that meeting? SS: I think about 90. HH: And you said the format was chosen. SS: Large group work. And my approach was this –when I go into an organization and be g i nt of a c i l i t a t e ,Id on’ te xp e c tt h eo r g a ni z a t i ont oa d a ptt omys t y l eofwor k i ng . So part of my interviews is to begin to understand style of the organization, and to ma t c ht ha ti nmyf a c i l i t a t i on.SoI ’ mr e a l l yi nt e r e s t e di nma t ching the facilitation s t y l e .Tha t ’ ss u pe ri mpor t a n tf orme . What is pOD? 206 HH: So in this particular case, did the group process look anything like, you know a group process say within the Process Work community? SS: Abs o l u t e l y ,bu ti t ’ sf r a me d .Le t ’ st hi nkf i r s ta bo ut the traditional group process, f r omaPr oc e s sWor kp e r s pe c t i ve .Sa yt he r e ’ snot op i c ,ok a y ?Youg oi n,y ou check out the atmosphere, you sort towards consensus, you pick up the roles, you work with the ghost roles, you unfold them, you look for edges and hotspots, and you help unfold the process. Then you frame during that whole scene –is that correct? HH: Yes. SS: Tha t ’ se s s e nt i a l l yt hePr oc e s sWor kmode l .No wwh e nIg oi n t oag r oup ,Iha ve that mapped inside me –it is me. So I walk in and I say t ot he m,“ i t ’ sa nhono ur ,a pl e a s u r et ob ehe r e ,e t c , e t c ” .Ik i ndo fs h a r eal i t t l ea bo utmy s e l f .AndI ’ ds a y , “ wha ts ho ul dwedowi t ht hi st i me ? ” We ’ r ei nac i r c l e .Ig e ta wa yf r omt a b l e sa n dc ha i r s .SoIc r e a t eas pa c ewhe r e t he r e ’ sac i r c l e ,ort wo circles depending on the size of the group, or three circles. ButIwa ntt ha tk i ndofs pa c e ,whe r et he r e ’ sa no pe nc e nt r e .The r ea r eaf e wt hi ng s I require when I go into a group. Number one is a flip chart, the second thing is markers. Ido n’ tu s epowerpoint. And the circle is set up with no desks and tables. Andt he nIc omei n ,a ndIs a y ,“ he r ewea r e .I t ’ sap l e a s ur et obehe r ee t c ,wh a t s ho ul dwel o oka t ? ”An dIg i v ei tt ot h eg r oup .AndIa l r e a dyk n owi nmyp oc k e t , six or eight issues they areg o i ngt owa n tt ol ooka t .An dt h a t ’ st hea d va nt a g eI have. And then I stay wide awake. Someone will bring up an issue, and someone wi l lbr i ngupa not he ri s s ue , a ndwha tImi g htdoi ss a yt ot he m,“ y o uk nowt hi s i s s uel ook sl i kei t ’ squ i t ei nt e ns e .And we have a whole bunch of time. Should we focus on an intense issue as it comes up, or should we try and get a whole bunch of i s s ue s , be f or ewede c i d ewh e r et og o? ”Yous e ewea r ej us ti nt hes or t i ngpr o c e s s , c a ny ous e et ha t ?I t ’ sj us to r g a ni c .No wi ft h e ys a yl e t ’ sf oc usonon ea si tc ome s up ,Is a y“ g r e a t ” .I ft he ys a yl e t ’ sg e tawh ol ebunc hofi d e a sIs a y ,“ l e tmeput t he mont heb oa r df orus ” . HH: Andwha tha ppe n si fonep e r s ons a y sl e t ’ sf oc usono ne , a ndot he r ss a yl e t ’ sg e tt h e issues up? SS: Ig i vei tba c kt ot heg r o up .I ’ mf a c i l i t a t i ng ,s oIs a y ,“ we l l ,i tl o ok sl i k eweha ve di ve r s i t yi nt h eg r oupa bou tho wt opr o c e e d .We l l ,ho ws h oul dwede c i d ef r i e n ds ? ” Or ,“ h ows hou l dwede c i de ? ”–and give it back to the group. And the group decides how to proceed. Frequently, an early group will just choose to go with an i s s uet ha t ’ shot ,s oI ’ l ls a y“ t h i sl ook shot ,l e t ’ ss t a ywi t ht ha t ” .Buti ft hegr ou p c ho os e st os or tt o wa r dsac ons e n s us , a ts o mep oi nti nt i meI ’ l ls a y“ doy out hi nki t ’ s time to choose an issue yet? ”An dt h e y ’ l ls a yy e sorno.Tha t ’ si t .The ydon’ t know anything about process work. Then, once we get to making a c on s e ns u s ,I ’ l l s a y ,“ ho wd owec hoo s e ? ” , a ndpe opl ewi l le ve n t ua l l yc hoo s ea ni s s u ea ndI ’ l ls a y “ g r e a t , l e t ’ sg owi t ht hi so ne ” .An dwe ’ veg otc on s e ns u s .Andi fwedo n’ th a ve ,I ’ l l s pe ndt i met he r e .An ds a y ,“ y o uk nowi t ’ sr e a l l yi mpor t a n tf orust or e a l l ys o r t What is pOD? 207 whi c hi sbe s t ,l e t ’ st a k et i mehe r e .Th i si sp a r toft hec ommuni t yg e t t i ngt ok no w itself, or the group g e t t i ngt ok n owi t s e l f .Nopr obl e m,l e t ’ st a k et i me ” . HH: So you are framing it. SS: Ye s ,Ij us tf r a mei ti nawa yt ha tma k e si the l pf ul .I ’ ds a y“ t hi si sv e r yi mp or t a nt t ha te ve r y one ’ svo i c ebehe a r d ” .Onc eweg e tt h e r e ,weg e ti nt oa ni s s ue ,a ndIhear t hevo i c e sc omi ngou t .Ido n’ tr e q ui r epe op l emo vene c e s s a r i l y .I fI ’ vebe e nwi t h t heg r ou pf oran umbe roft i me s ,I ’ l lbe g i nt oi n t r oduc er ol epl a y… y ouk nowr ol e i de a s , f r omones i det oa no t h e r .Butf r e q ue nt l yI ’ l lus ei ta sat ownme e t i ng . “ The r ei so nes i de , c a ns ome onet a l kt ot h eo t he r ? ”Some t i me sIdon ’ te v e ns a y t ha t ,Ij us ts a y“ l e t ’ she a ry ourt houg ht s ” ,a ndI ’ ml o ok i ngf o rt heg h os t s .Al mos t i nva r i a b l yy oudo n’ th a vet of r a meag ho s torf i ndi t , i twi l lc omeupi t s e l f .And y ou’ veg o tto catch it as it comes up, cos it comes up subtly and disappears. So I c a t c ht heg h os t ,Is a y“ h e y ,t ha t ’ savo i c et ha t ’ si mpor t a n t , c a ny o us a ymor ea b out t ha t ? ”Andwehe l pbr i ngo utt heg hos t .Andt he r ewea r e ! Andt he nI ’ mwa t c hi ngf o re dg e s , a ndt he y ’ l lof t e nc on s t e l l a t ebe t we e nt wop e opl e . I ’ l ls e et wope op l ei nt heg r o upc ommuni c a t i ngi nt e n s e l y .Andy o u’ l ls e ea ne dg e a ndI ’ l ls a y“ l e t ’ sg os l owl yhe r e ” . HH: Wonderful SS: Actually, you can really do effective Process Work. I think Process Work is a pr o f o undmo de l ,a ndt hepr of o und ne s soft h emode li st h a ti t ’ sn otamo de l ,i t ’ sa pr o c e s s .AndI ’ mf ol l o wi ngt hepr oc e s s .It hi nkt h a t ’ swhyProcess Work is so profound –i t ’ sa c t ua l l ywha t ’ sh a pp e ni ng !Andt he ny ou’ r ec r e a t i ngaf r a me wor k for wha t ’ sha pp e ni ng ,a ndwe ’ r ea b l et ot r a c ki tt hr oug ht hemode l . HH: Yes, fantastic! SS: Yes! HH: Iha vet woque s t i o nst h a tc o meoutofwha ty ou ’ vea l r e a dys a i d.On ei st ha ty ou prepare, you talk to 15 people. When you say you prepare, do you go into roles that you might expect, and flesh them out? What does the preparation look like? SS: In the first case, I want to know what the issues are. And so I can anticipate the types of tensions and conflict that are in the room by virtue of the issues. Then, if I f i ndt ha tt h e r e ’ sap a r t i c ul a rc h a l l e ng et ha tI ’ ms t uc kwi t h, I ’ l lg oi nt ot h er ol e s around it. And I find out what ghost roles I can anticipate. So, in this situation, where you can hear that people are upset with an executive director –typically in that situation, I can imagine the one who is upset, by virtue of rank, might have a di f f i c ul t yi ng e t t i ngt he i rvo i c eo ut .Sot ha t ’ st hef i r s tt hi ngI ’ mwa t c h i ngf or .And Ia l r e a dyk n ows omeoft hee dg ef i g ur e s .I ’ ma f r a i dI ’ mg oi ngt og e tf i r e di fI say wha tIf e e l .SoI ’ vea l r e a dyg otawho l el otof value. You know what I mean? Butonc eIa mpr e pa r e d,Idr opt h ewh ol el o t .Ig oi ne mp t y .Youc a n ’ tg oi nwi t ha pretense, because that might not be the case of what emerges. And I have found, I ’ vepr e p a r e da ndt he not he rt hi ng sc o meu p,b utIf e e ll i k eI ’ veg ots omuc h knowledge about the group already, that the group feels me holding it by virtue of my awareness of it. What is pOD? 208 HH: Ri g ht ,t ha t ’ sg r e a t . SS: So ,s ot ha t ’ smyt a s k . HH:a n dt h e ny o us a i d… SS: I ’ l lg i vey o ua ne xa mpl e .Oneofmyne xtj ob si sg o i ngi n t ot h eUn i t e dNa t i on s ,a nd I ’ m wo r k i ngwi t ht h eh e a dsi nt hec ou nt r y .Uni t e dNa t i o nsCommi s s i onf or Refugees, United Nations Development Programme, UNICEF, International Organization for Migration, World Health Organization –all of them are United Nations affiliates. So all the heads are going to be at the meeting together. I want a discussion with every head –at least once, if not more. HH: Before the meeting. SS: Oh, absolutely. I want to know all the dynamics, I want to know all the issues. I want to be as prepared as I can be. HH: Wow!Andt he ny ou’ r eg o i ngt obef a c i l i t a t i ngt ha tme e t i ng , orc o-facilitating? SS: I ’ mf a c i l i t a t i ngi t .I t ’ sn ott h ei nt e r n a t i o na lbody ,i t ’ st hen a t i o na lb ody .I ’ mn oty e t r e a dyf orNe wYor k !I ’ dl i k et obe . HH: Maybe this is the pathway to get there. And just going back to this case study, you said after the group process, you said you also did some work with some teams. SS: Yes, a whole range of teams. HH: Can you describe that work? SS: It depended on what the need of the team was. Some of the teams need me to come in because there are tensions in the team, and they feel having a facilitator is a pp r opr i a t e .Tha t ’ sof t e na sat e a m.Ot h e rt i me s ,i t ’ s team building. They feel that if they have a facilitator they will make the meeting much more effective. So there are different motivations for me coming in. HH: And team building in that sense is –t ha t ’ ss uc habr oa dt e r m–training? SS: No.I ’ mf a c i l i t a t i ngt hes ma l lg r oupp r oc e s soft h et e a m.Whe nI ’ mc ons u l t i ngl i ke t ha t ,Idon’ tdot r a i ni ng .Iwi l ldot r a i ni ng ,bu tt r a i ni ngi sav e r ydi f f e r e ntf or m. Andt heon l yt r a i ni ngI ’ l ld oi sPr oc e s sWor kt r a i ni ng–Iwon’ tdog e ne r a l i z e d training. If pe o pl ewa ntt oi nt e g r a t et hemod e li nt ot heor g a ni z a t i on,I ’ l lc omei n and train them in how to facilitate in that model. HH: How long have you been doing organisational development work for? SS: I started a b out6y e a r sa g o.Andi t ’ sb e e ng r o wi ng.I ta c t u a l l yh a s n’ tbe e nmyma i n focus –b uti tha sbe c omei nc r e a s i ng l ys o.Gi ve nt ha tI ’ mt r y i ngt ono ton l ybea n ODc ons u l t a n t , butI ’ mt r y i ngt oa c t ua l l yc h a ng ea nor g a n i z a t i o nmy s e l f ,a s pr e s i de nt .AndIha vet os a yi t ’ smu c he a s i e r ,t of a c i l i t a t ea no r g a nization than be a pr e s i de nta ndc r e a t ec ha ng e .I t ’ si n c r e di bl yha r d–you really understand why, pr e s i de nt sa ndpe o pl ei ns i g ni f i c a ntp l a c e si nt h eor g a ni z a t i onn e e dc o ns ul t a nt s .I t ’ s very clear. What is pOD? 209 HH: Be c a u s e… s a yas e nt e nc eormor ea bo utt ha t ? SS: I t ’ sha r d!Be c a u s ef r e que nt l yy ou’ r eal e a de r .Whi c hme a nst h a ty ouha v eone side, and the other side is irritating. And often the other side has an important me s s a g e ,a n ds omer e a l l yvi t a li nf o r ma t i o nt h a tn e e dst obehe a r da ndi nt e gr a t e d… t ha t ’ swhyi t ’ sdisturbing! The essence of the idea of the disturber in Process Work, is that the disturber comes in order to awaken us to information that we are not yet pr e s e ntt o.An di t ’ sdi s t ur bi ngt ha twhi c hne e dst obedi s t ur be d ,whi c hi sf r e que n t l y the primary identity of the organization. The disturber comes as an awakener of the primary identity, and encourages an emerging secondary process within an or g a ni z a t i on.An di t ’ sve r yha r di fy oua r et hepr e s i d e nt ,t owa n tt ohe a ri t . Because you have your own plans , a ndno wt he ya r ei ny ourwa y !Th a t ’ smy ph i l os ophy .Th a t ’ swhyy oun e e dahug ec a pa c i t yt odoi nn e rwo r ka ndwor ko nt h e disturber as an aspect of yourself, to enrich you. HH: I st h e r ea ny t hi nge l s ey ou’ dl i k et oa dd? SS: Yes, I want to say one thing about OD work. What I want to say is that OD work, in process work, is unbelievably exciting. I have had so much exposure to so many c on s ul t a nt s .I ’ vebe e ndoi ngt r a i ni ngs e r i e sa r ou ndODwor ki na ppl i c a t i ont o executive coaching, group facilitation andl e a de r s hi p.An ddi ve r s i t yi s s u e s ,t ha t ’ s t hene xto neI ’ mwor k i ngwi t hi nSo ut hAf r i c a .SoI ’ mdoi ngt hi ss e r i e s .AndI c a n ’ tt e l ly o uhowt ur ne do nODp r a c t i t i on e r sa r e . HH: Oh really? SS: I ’ mi n vi t e di n t oe xc l us i veg r o upsofODpr a c t i t i on e r s ,I ’ mg etting senior people that have been in the field for 30 or 40 years coming to my workshop. They are unbelievably excited. Because they feel they are getting a tool which is so vital. Ands oma nyoft h e mne e di t .SoIt hi nkwe ’ vej us tg otar e ma r k a b l et ool there, whi c hi sr e a l l yj us ta tt h eb e g i nn i ngofc r e a t i on.AndI ’ mve r ye xc i t e dt os e ehow weg oi ni t , ove rt hene xt2 0,3 0y e a r s .It h i nki t ’ sg o i ngt ob er e ma r ka b l ea c t u a l l y . HH: Yes! SS: An awesome tool, awesome tool. HH: I agree, very exciting. SS: Fantastic! What is pOD? 210 Appendix C –Te s c h’ sGe ne r i cApp r oac ht oAnal y s i s Te s c h’ s( 199 0)g e n e r i ca p pr oa c ht oa na l y s i sa sc i t e di nAGui det oUs i ngQua l i t a t i ve Methods in Process Work Research (Jones, 2005): Get a sense of the whole. Begin with first available data document (e.g. interview transcript), read it and other documents as they come in. Jot down ideas about the data, go to step two when you have about 1/4th or 1/5th of your data. Pick any document to start with –the most interesting, shortest or whatever you feel like reading first. Read and pay attention to switches or transitions from topic to topic. Make a di s t i nc t i onbe t we e nc ont e n ta ndt o pi c .As ky o ur s e l f ,“ Wha ti st hi sa bo ut ? ”( not“ Wha t i ss a i d ? ” )Wr i t et hi sa saoneort wowor dt opi cna mei nt hemargin. Deal with substance later. Do this for three or four data documents, then make a list of all of the topic names you have written in the margin. Make one column per document, and place all the columns on the same sheet. Compare and connect topics, and cluster similar topics. Choose the best fitting topic name, or come up with a new one, for each topic. Go back to your data, make new copies of the documents you have worked with, and use the list of topics in the first and second columns as a preliminary organizing system. Abbreviate the topics as codes and write them next to text segments in one document. (This serves two purposes: it shows how well your topic descriptions correspond to what you find in the data, and may turn up new topics if you find that c e r t a i ns e g me nt sc a n’ tbec od e dwi t ht hepr e l i mi na r ys y s t e m) . Try the system on a couple more documents. Write notes (memos) as you go about what you are finding, ideas, comments about the analysis process, etc. Refine your organizing system. Find the most descriptive name for topics. At this stage, a descriptively named topic is called a category. Write the most frequently occurring categories in a list, and write any unique topics in another. (If you have s omec a t e g or i e st h a td on’ tf i ti ne i t he ro f these lists, list them separately.) 25 –50 is good number of categories to work with. Make a map of relations between your two main lists. Draw lines between them. Abbreviate names, add them to your list or map. Feel free to give various codes to one segment of text (multiple code). After coding, assemble the data material belonging to each category in one place. Perform a preliminary analysis, by looking at the collection of material in one category at a time. Look at content, identify and summarize it, then look for What is pOD? 211 commonalties, uniqueness, confusions and contradictions, missing information about your research question and topic. Keep your research purpose and questions nearby, and refer to them often, to focus your analysis. Re-code your existing data if need be. Use the results of your analysis so far to guide your next round of data collection. Repeat the process with subsequent data. Ask yourself if some categories can crystallize into research outcomes (themes which address your research questions). Structure the flow of research report around these themes. What is pOD? 212 Appendix D –Data Analysis Details Mya na l y s i spr oc e s swa s‘ ba s e d’upo nTe s c h( 1 990) ,i nt ha tIus e dhe ra na l y s i spr oc e s sa s ag ui de l i n e ,r a t he rt ha na sas e tof‘ r u l e s ’t ha tIn e e de dt os trictly follow (Patton, 2002, p. 57). There were six phases of analysis: 1. Getting an Overview 2. Defining the Categories and Sub-Categories 3. Assigning Categories and Sub-Categories to Text Segments 4. As s e mb l i ngCa t e g or i e si n t o‘ Se c t i o ns ’ 5. Generation of Themes 6. Preparing MACFOC Presentation 7. Write-up Details of each phase of analysis follow. Analysis Phase 1 –Getting an Overview According to Tesch (1990), the first step of the analysis is to: Get a sense of the whole. Begin with first available data document (e.g. interview transcript), read it and other documents as they come in. Jot down ideas about the data, go to step two when you have about 1/4th or 1/5th of your data. I read the three interviews I had at that point in time and recorded high level summaries of the content in a column next to the data (code 2). The number of the question being answered was also recorded in a column (code 1). This was all done in MSWord, as per the example below: Code 1 Code 2 Data 1.4 Varies a lot; HH:Ho wl ongdoe sy ourwor kno r ma l l yg of o r ?AndI ’ m guessing that might change for different types of organisations, or maybe there is something more general. Courtship period takes a long time J D:I t ’ sc omp l e t e l yd e pe n de ntonwha ti ti s .The r ea r ea l l kinds of answers in that question. One of the things about organisational work, that seems to be somewhat different to one-to-one work, for the first time I have a big difference here, is the courtship period. What is pOD? 213 The summaries were then cut and paste so that each question had an answer for each of the participants. The following is an example of the summaries for interview question 1c :“ Wha t ' sy o urr o l e ?( Ho wi si tde f i ne df r omt hec l i e n tor g a ni s a t i o n’ ss i de ,h owdoy o u define yourself? How would you describe the work you do? ) ” : 1c. What's your role? Lesli I think my role now is really around coaching, facilitating, and introducing an educational process that people can really develop more participative, collaborative teams. Max I define myself as a facilitator whose taski ti st oh e l pt of i ndt hep e r s on’ smy t h, t heg r ou port h epe r s on ’ smy t h . I see my task is to help them find the key purpose, and then notice it, and then celebrate it and then use it. Coach individuals Group process Strategic retreats Developing business plan Change management Julie Pe opl ewoul ds a yI ’ mac on s ul t a nt ,orac oa c h.OrI ’ mat r a i n e roraf a c i l i t a t o r . How they define role –team worker, consultant, coach Changes with the situation. This gave me an overview of the information I had gathered. This was useful as I already had conducted the majority of my interviews and was overwhelmed by all the i nf or ma t i on .I ta l s ohi g hl i g h t e dt h a ta se xpe c t e d ,s omeo ft heda t ad i d n’ tf i tn e a t l ya sa n answer to the interview questions –other themes were beginning to show their presence. It is important to note that this overview was mostly content based rather than meaning based. In subsequent phases the analysis became more focused on the meaning of what participants said, as is the nature of qualitative inquiry. Analysis Phase 2 –Defining the Categories and Sub-Categories The next steps, according to Tesch (1990), are to: What is pOD? 214 “ Pi c ka nydo c ume n tt os t a r twi t h–the most interesting, shortest or whatever you feel like reading first. Read and pay attention to switches or transitions from topic to t opi c .Ma keadi s t i n c t i o nbe t we e nc ont e nta ndt opi c .As ky our s e l f ,“ Wha ti st hi s a bo ut ? ”( n ot“ Wha ti ss a i d? ” ) .Wr i t et hi sa saon eort wowor dt op i cn a mei nt h e margin. Deal with substance later. Do this for three or four data documents, then make a list of all of the topic names you have written in the margin. Make one column per document, and place all the columns on the same sheet. Compare and connect topics, and cluster similar topics. Choose the best f i t t i ngt opi cna me , orc omeupwi t hane won e ,f ore a c ht opi c . ” After Analysis Phase 1, each of the transcripts was in MSWord in a tabular format, with e a c hr owo ft het a bl ec or r e s p ond i ngt oa‘ c hunk’o fi nf o r ma t i o n.Tope r f or mt he s ene xt steps of the analysis I cut and paste each transcript into Excel. Each row was numbered sequentially. Ta k i ngt hef i r s ti nt e r vi e w,Is l owl yr e a dt het r a ns c r i pt ,g i v i nge a c h‘ c h unk ’at op i cn a me whi c hde s c r i be d‘ wha ti st hi sa bo ut ? ’a ndr e c or de dt hi si nt hec o l u mnna me dCo de 2. Where necessary, I split a chunk into multiple chunks. Some of topic names corresponded to the previous summaries, but most were changed to reflect the meaning ba s e d( ‘ wh a ti st hi sa b out ? ’ )a na l y s i s .AsIwa su s i ngExc e lt h e r ewa sn one e dt o abbreviate these topic names to one or two words. Examples of the topic names were: who drives the pOD process pODc on s ul t a nt ’ sc onf i de n c e steps of pOD –interview The column with the topic words (Code 2) was then copied to another spreadsheet, and sorted into a l ph a be t i c a lor de r( af u nc t i onofExc e l )t os t a r tt og r oup‘ l i k e ’t o pi c s .Ea c h topic word was then renamed to shorten it and to give some consistency between topic names –in this renaming process a two level system was used, resulting in 26 ‘ c a t e g or i e s ’a n d53‘ s ub -c a t e g or i e s ’ . Exa mp l e sof‘ c a t e g or i e s ’( t ha tc or r e s p ondt ot het opi cna me si nt hea b ovee xa mpl e )a r e : Ask/tell balance Co pexp (short hand for consultant personal experience) pOD steps Exa mp l e sof‘ s ub -c a t e g or i e s ’a r e : Co pexp –confidence pOD step –interview pOD step –follow-up pOD step –interventions With this early categorising system by my side, I read the second transcript in the same manner as the first, this time assigning existing categories and sub-categories where possible, and adding new categories and sub-categories where needed. What is pOD? 215 The categories and sub-categories from both interviews were then consolidated into one l i s tof34‘ c a t e g or i e s ’a nd82‘ s ub -c a t e g or i e s ’ . Analysis Phase 3 –Assigning Categories and Sub-Categories to Text Segments Te s c h’ s( 199 0)ne xtda t aa n a l y s i ss t e p sa r ea sf ol l ows : Go back to your data, make new copies of the documents you have worked with, and use the list of topics in the first and second columns as a preliminary organizing system. Abbreviate the topics as codes and write them next to text segments in one document. (This serves two purposes: it shows how well your topic descriptions correspond to what you find in the data, and may turn up new topics if you find that c e r t a i ns e g me nt sc a n’ tbec od e dwi t hthe preliminary system). Try the system on a couple more documents. Write notes (memos) as you go about what you are finding, ideas, comments about the analysis process, etc. Refine your organizing system. Find the most descriptive name for topics. At this stage, a descriptively named topic is called a category. Write the most frequently occurring categories in a list, and write any unique topics in another. (If you have s omec a t e g or i e st h a td on’ tf i ti ne i t he ro ft he s el i s t s ,l i s tt he ms e pa r a t e l y . )25 –50 is g o odnumbe rofc a t e g o r i e st owor kwi t h . ” Taking each interview, I assigned each text segment a category, and in many cases a subcategory. I split text segments into two or more segments if required. If multiple categories and/or sub-categories corresponded to a text segment, I would assign the first category/sub-category to the segment. Then I would make a copy that text segment and assign the next category/sub-category to this text segment, changing the font colour of the text so I could identify it was a copy. All of this took place in Excel. I wrote notes about my findings and ideas, and about the analysis process in a journal. Myo r g a ni s i ngs y s t e m,wi t hi t s34c a t e g or i e swo r ke dwe l lf o rt hi s ,a n ddi dn’ tne e dt h e refining as suggested by Tesch (1990). Analysis Phase 4 –As s e mb l i ngCa t e gor i e si nt o‘ Se c t i ons ’ The next steps suggested by Tesch (1990) are to: “ Ma k eama pofr e l a t i o nsbe t we e ny ourt woma i nl i s t s .Dr a wl i ne sbe t we e nt h e m. Abbreviate names, add them to your list or map. Feel free to give various codes to one segment of text (multiple code). After coding, assemble the data material belonging to each category in one place. Perform a preliminary analysis, by looking at the collection of material in one category at a time. Look at content, identify and summarize it, then look for commonalties, uniqueness, confusions and contradictions, missing information about What is pOD? 216 your research question and topic. Keep your research purpose and questions nearby, and refer to them often, to focus youra na l y s i s . ” Ta k i ngt he34c a t e g or i e s ,Inowg r oup e dt he mi nt o9‘ s e c t i o ns ’orc l u s t e r s ,a n dna me d them as follows: question 1 - organisation information question 2 - pOD definition question 3 - pOD steps consultant pOD examples pOD general OD insights interview related Ane xa mpl eofh ow‘ c a t e g o r i e s ’we r eg r ou pe di nt os e c t i on sf o l l ows .Thes e c t i onc a l l e d ‘ qu e s t i o n2–pODd e f i ni t i on ’i nc l u de dt hef ol l owi ngc a t e g or i e s : pOD definition general pOD interventions pOD or not? TOD (therapy/OD comparison or individual/organisation parallel) development - as in organisation development The next step was to combine all four interviews into one Excel file, and sequentially renumber each text segment (chunk) starting from 1001 for the first interview, 2001 for the second interview, 3001 for the third interview and so on. So the first text segment in the first interview was numbered 1001, the second text segment in the first interview was numbered 1002, the third 1003 and so on. It h e ns or t e dt he‘ c a t e g or y ’c ol umna l phabetically, and set up a separate Excel file for e a c ho ft hen i n e‘ s e c t i o ns ’ .Ic uta ndpa s t ee a c hc a t e g o r yi n t ot hec o r r e s pondi ngs e c t i on , g i vi nge a c hc a t e g or yi t sown‘ s h e e t ’i nExc e l . Analysis Phase 5 –Generation of Themes Te s c h’ s( 199 0)ne xts t e psa re to: Re-code your existing data if need be. Use the results of your analysis so far to guide your next round of data collection. Repeat the process with subsequent data. Ask yourself if some categories can crystallize into research outcomes (themes which address your research questions). Structure the flow of research report around these themes. I read through each of the categories, and re-coded some text segments into other categories. I then wrote a high level summary for each category, and pulled all the What is pOD? 217 summaries together by topic into an MSWord document. This gave me the second overview of the data I had collected, with themes beginning to emerge. I then worked through a topic at a time, analysing and summarising each more thoroughly and until the first round of research outcomes became clear. Analysis Phase 6 –Preparing MACF Presentation At this point in the analysis I needed to pull together all the work to date to make a verbal presentation of the study –this was a requirement of the MACF programme. I came up with an initial structure with which to present the study, and preliminary conclusions based on the analysis to date. This involved doing more detailed analysis of some of the themes, but in a less precise way than the analysis so far. Analysis Phase 7 –Write Up As I started choosing data exemplars to illustrate the various themes for my thesis, I found text segments in one theme that really belonged to another theme, and realised that my understanding of the themes was so much deeper now, that my earlier coding of each text segment was no longer satisfactory. I considered moving the text segments between t he me s , buts e ns e dI ’ de ndupi ndi s a r r a y .Re -coding the data from scratch seemed to be the most thorough thing to do at this stage. So, with my new understanding of the themes in hand, all the interviews were re-coded and the text segments relevant to each theme cut and paste into individual documents. This also served to bring me closer to the complete transcripts again, and to identify the data exemplars that I wanted to use in the thesis. A large part of the analysis occurred when I was writing the thesis. It was the act of pulling together the data exemplars that belonged to a theme, working out what order to put them in and introducing them, that finally crystallised the themes into research outcomes. What is pOD? 218 Appendix E –Participant Consent Form CONSENT FORM What is organizational development from a process work perspective? An interview study. Heike Hamann This research project is being conducted as part of the Master of Arts in Conflict Facilitation and Organisational Change, supervised by Lee Spark Jones at Process Work Institute, Portland, Oregon. Description of Study In this study I am exploring what organizational development is, from a Process Work perspective. How is it done? What are the concepts behind it? I do this through conducting interviews with Process Work faculty members who identify as working in organizations. My research method is basic interpretive qualitative analysis –very briefly this means that my data collection has been in the form of interviews, which I ha v et r a n s c r i be da n dt he na na l y s e d, bybr e a k i ngt hei nf or ma t i oni nt o‘ c hunk s ’ ,a ndt he n re-assembling these chunks into clusters, which I am sy n t h e s i z i ngi nt o‘ t h e me s ’ .The s e themes will form the findings of the study, which I will present and discuss giving examples from the data collected in the interviews. Participation As you are aware, participation in this research involved taking part in an interview, about 1 hour in length. There may be a need for me to ask you some clarifying questions, to ensure I have understood what you have said. Should this be necessary I will communicate with you by email. Confidentiality All of the information collected in the course of this study, including audiotapes and raw transcripts of interviews, and journal entries, is being treated with the utmost confidentiality. I am the only person who has access to this information. In written reports of the research and presentations, any information you required to be kept confidential will be protected by speaking in general terms about it and omitting identifying information. If you request it, your anonymity will be protected by using a What is pOD? 219 pseudonym and omitting identifying information. If the research is published at a later date, the same care will be taken to respect confidentiality and preserve anonymity. Intellectual Property Any information you share with me (unless it was expressed as being confidential and therefore not part of this study) will be attributed to you, whether it be a quoted verbatim or paraphrasing what you have said. If you wish to remain anonymous, the information you share with me will be credited to you via your pseudonym. Transcripts Iwo ul dl i k et oi nc l u dea‘ t i di e d ’upv e r s i onoft het r a ns c r i pt sa sa nAppe n di xt omy report. I believe this adds to the contribution of this research, as so little has been written about this application of Process Work to date. I imagine readers of the study will be i nt e r e s t i ngi nhe a r i ngwha te a c hofy ous a i d ,i ni t se nt i r e t y .Iwi l l‘ t i dy ’upt her a w t r a ns c r i pt st or e moveuhmsa nda h hsa nd‘ t hi nk i n gwor ds ’–s of ore xa mp l e ,“ whe nIvi s i t Ca na d aIpl a nt o… u hm,we l l , I ’ mt hi nk i ngof… Ima yg ot oCalgery and go paragliding i nGol de n ”wo ul dbe c ome ,“ wh e nIvi s i tCa na d aIma yg ot oCa l g e r ya ndgop a r a g l i di ng i nGol de n ” .Th i si st oma ket het r a n s c r i pte a s i e rt or e a da n dt oputy oui nt hebe s t possible light. I mentioned the possibility of my including the transcripts to all of you during the interviews, and if you are still in agreement with me doing so, please indicate this below. Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you are free to not answer questions, end your participation, or withdraw from the research at any time. Your refusal to participate or withdrawal of consent will not affect how you are treated in any way. If you would like to discuss this research further, please contact Heike Hamann on 503 367 7093 or at [email protected] or Lee Spark Jones on 503 281 8323 or at [email protected]. Research Title: What is organizational development from a process work perspective? An interview study. I, ………………………………………………………,c o ns e n tt opa r t i c i pa t ei nt he research conducted by Heike Hamann as described above. What is pOD? 220 I do/do not (please cross out as applicable) consent to Heike identifying me as one of the participants of this interview study. Id o/ don ot( p l e a s ec r os souta sa pp l i c a b l e )c o ns e ntt oHe i k ei nc l udi ngt h e‘ t i di e dup ’ transcript in the appendix of her report. I would/would not like to see a copy of the transcript before it is included in the report. I understand that the data collected will be used for research purposes as outlined above, and I consent for the data to be used in that manner. Si g ne d ……. ……. ….……………………………… Da t e……………… What is pOD? 221 Appendix F –pOD in the Context of the General OD Field Setting pOD in the context of the broader OD field would be an interesting and significant contribution to the field of pOD and to Process Work, in that it would enable practitioners of pOD to converse with general OD practitioners with some understanding of the general OD field. Additionally, it would enable pOD practitioners to understand the particular strengths of pOD in the general OD field, and position and market themselves accordingly to organisations. Here I begin this process by re-categorising the problems and issues and interventions discussed in this study using general OD categories. The general OD intervention categories are taken from Organisation Development and Change (Waddell, Cummings &Worley, 2004) and are summarised below. OD Interventions Waddell et al. (2004) breaks Interventions down into four categories (p. 159): 1. Interpersonal interventions 2. Technostructural interventions 3. Human resource management interventions 4. Strategic interventions The following summary of each of the Interventions is taken from Waddell et al. (2004, p.160-164). Interpersonal OD Interventions Interpersonal Intervent i on sf o c uson“ p e op l ewi t hi nor g a n i s a t i o nsa ndt hepr o c e s s e s through which they accomplish organisational goals. These processes include c ommuni c a t i on ,pr ob l e ms o l vi ng ,g r oupd e c i s i onma k i nga ndl e a d e r s hi p. ”I n t e r v e nt i ons in this category are derived mainly from the disciplines of psychology or social psychology. Examples of interventions include: Interpersonal relations and group dynamics interventions t-group (specific experiential learning method to provide members learning about group dynamics, leadership and interpersonal relations) process consultation (interpersonal relations and social dynamics in work groups) What is pOD? 222 third-party interventions (conflict facilitation) team building (helping work groups become more effective in accomplishing tasks) Systemwide interventions organisation confrontation meeting (mobilisation of organisation members to identify and solve problems) intergroup relations (improvement of interactions between different groups or departments in an organisation) large-group interventions (large group process) grid organisation development (a specific way of managing an organisation). Technostructural OD Interventions Technostructural interventions focus on the technology and structure of organisations. Technology in this instance refers to how jobs are designed and task methods, while structure relates to the division of labour, say between departments, and the hierarchy of the organisation. Engineering, sociology and psychology are the disciplines in which technostructural interventions are rooted. Examples of interventions include: structural design (how the organisation divides labour) downsizing (reducing the size of the organisation to reduce costs and bureaucracy) re-engineering (redesign of core work processes) employee involvement programmes (such as total quality management) work design (designing work to suit both technical and personal needs). Human Resource Management OD Interventions Huma nr e s our c ei nt e r ve nt i o nsf oc u so n“ pe r s on ne lpr a c t i c e sus e dt oi nt e g r a t ep e opl ei nto organisations. These practices include career planning, reward systems, goal setting and pe r f o r ma nc ea p pr a i s a l ”( Wa dd e l le ta l . , 200 4,p .16 2) .The s ei nt e r ve n t i on s“ a r er oot e di n t hedi s c i pl i ne sofe c o nomi c sa ndl a b ourr e l a t i o ns ”a ndi nr e c e nty e a r sthere has been a growing interest in integrating HR management with organisational development. Examples of interventions include: Performance management interventions goal setting performance appraisal reward systems What is pOD? 223 Developing and assisting organisation member interventions career planning and development managing work-force diversity employee wellness Strategic OD Interventions St r a t e g i ci nt e r ve n t i o nsf oc usonl i nk i ng“ t hei nt e r na lf unc t i on i ngoft h eo r g a ni s a t i ont o the larger environment and transform the organisation to keep pace with changing c on di t i o ns ”( p.1 63) .St r a t e g i cma na g e me nt ,o r g a n i s a t i ont he or y ,o pe ns y s t e mst he or y and cultural anthropology are the disciplines from which these interventions are derived. Examples of interventions include: Interventions aimed at managing organisation and environment relationships open systems planning (systematic assessment of environmental relationships and plans to improve interactions) integrated strategic change and (changing both business strategies and organisational systems in response to external and internal disruptions) transorganisational development (forming partnerships with other organisations). Interventions for transforming organisations culture change (develop behaviours, values, beliefs and norms appropriate to their strategy and environment) self-de s i g n i ngor g a n i s a t i o ns( “ he l pi ngo r g a ni s a t i on sg a i nt h ec a pa c i t yt o f un da me n t a l l ya l t e rt he ms e l ve s ” ) or g a ni s a t i o nl e a r ni ng( “ t heo r g a ni s a t i ons y s t e ma t i c a l l ye xa mi ne st h ewa yi t operates to uncover patterns in its actions and the assumptions underlying these pa t t e r nsa n dt h ea l t e r a t i ono ft ho s ep a t t e r n s ” ) . An OD View of Issues A way of grouping the issues and problems discussed in the study is into four intervention categories proposed by Waddell et al. (2004) as described above. Following a brief description of the categories a table showing the issues categorised using the Process Work levels and the OD categories is presented. Interpersonal Issues –According to Waddell et al. (2004), interpersonal issues are issues related to how to communicate, how to solve issues, how to make decisions, how to interact and how to lead (p.157). Strategic Issues –Strategic issues, according to Waddell et al. (2004, p.157), are the issues related to what products and services the organisation provides, how to gain a competitive advantage and in what markets they compete in. Strategic issues also include What is pOD? 224 how the organisation relates to its ever-changing environment. Questions regarding the values that guide the organisations functioning also fall into this category. Human Resource Management Issues –Issues related to how to attract competent people to the organisation, set goals, appraise and reward them for their performance, career development and stress management make up human resource management issues (Waddell et al., 2004, p.158). Technostructural Issues –According to Waddell et al. (2004), technostructural issues refer to issues regarding how to divide labour, how to co-ordinate departments, how to produce products or services and how to design work (p. 157). The table below summarises the issues mentioned by the participants using the two categorising systems –Process Work and OD (as per Waddell et al., 2004). OD Category PW Category Work-life balance HR management Personal Communication issues Interpersonal Interpersonal Difficulties in collaborating Interpersonal Interpersonal Rank problems Interpersonal Interpersonal Dealing with conflict Interpersonal Interpersonal Sub-group marginalisation HR management Interpersonal Diversity issues HR management Interpersonal Organisation chart Technostructural Organisational Different functions in organisation Technostructural Organisational Strategic change/myth work Strategic Organisational When grouped using the OD categorising system, many of the issues fall into the category of interpersonal and human resource management issues, with issues in the other two categories being less common. What is pOD? 225 An OD View of Interventions To get an overview of how the interventions discussed by the study participants might be viewed in the OD context, they have been summarised and sorted into the four intervention categories suggested by Waddell et al. (2004) –interpersonal, technostructural, human resource management and strategic. The corresponding Process Work category for is shown as a comparison. OD Category PW Category Coaching HR Management Personal Peer Coaching HR Management Personal Learning Lab HR Management Personal Conflict resolution Interpersonal Interpersonal Communication intervention Interpersonal Interpersonal Bulletin board Interpersonal Interpersonal Team building/development Interpersonal Interpersonal Training Interpersonal Interpersonal Diversity work HR Management Interpersonal Work-life balance HR Management Personal Group process facilitation Interpersonal Organisational Systems alignment Technostructural Organisational Organisation structure Technostructural Organisational Policies Technostructural Organisational Strategic visioning & development Strategic Organisational Myth related work Strategic Organisational Organisational assessment Strategic Organisational What is pOD? 226 The table shows a number of things: Firstly, it is difficult to fit some of the pOD interventions into that particularly categorising system –the clearest example of this are the interventions we would c a t e g or i s eu nde r‘ pe r s o na li nt e r ve nt i on s ’ .Th e s eha veb e e npl a c e dund e rHu ma n Resource interventions, but do not fit so well there. This may point to the need for an extra category, personal interventions. This extra category would reflect that work with an individual in an organisation, on their own edges and issues, will develop an organisation and is therefore organisational development. This premise is based on the holographic principle, and discussed in the section Holographic Principle and Levels of Work. As such, it is an exciting contribution pOD could make to the field of OD, at least as it is described by Waddell et al. (2004). Secondly, most of the interventions fall into the human resources management and interpersonal categories, with less interventions mentioned in the other two categories. Another way to analyse the interventions discussed during the interviews ( ‘ p OD Interventions) is to compare them with specific interventions listed by Waddell et al. (2004), as per the following table: Interventions as described by Waddell et al. (2004) pOD Interventions Interpersonal Interventions T-group (specific experiential learning method to provide members learning about group dynamics, leadership and interpersonal relations) Process consultation (interpersonal relations and social dynamics in work groups) Communications interventions Third-party interventions (conflict facilitation) Conflict resolution Team building (helping work groups become more effective in accomplishing tasks) Team building/development Organisation confrontation meeting (mobilisation of organisation members to identify and solve problems) Intergroup relations (improvement of interactions between different groups or departments in an organisation) Large-group interventions (large group process) Group process facilitation What is pOD? 227 Interventions as described by Waddell et al. (2004) pOD Interventions Grid organisation development (a specific way of managing an organisation). Technostructural Interventions Structural design (how the organisation divides labour) Organisation structure Downsizing (reducing the size of the organisation to reduce costs and bureaucracy) Re-engineering (redesign of core work processes) Employee involvement programmes (such as total quality management) Work design (designing work to suit both technical and personal needs) Human Resource Management Interventions Goal setting Performance appraisal Reward systems Career planning and development Managing work-force diversity Diversity work Employee wellness Work-life balance, coaching, peercoaching, learning lab. Strategic Interventions Open systems planning (systematic assessment of environmental relationships and plans to improve interactions) Integrated strategic change and (changing both business Strategic visioning and strategies and organisational systems in response to external and development internal disruptions) Transorganisational development (forming partnerships with other organisations) NGO Mergers What is pOD? 228 Interventions as described by Waddell et al. (2004) pOD Interventions Culture change (develop behaviours, values, beliefs and norms appropriate to their strategy and environment) Self-de s i g ni ngor g a ni s a t i ons( “ he l p i ngor g a ni s a t i onsg a i nt he c a p a c i t yt of un da me nt a l l ya l t e rt h e ms e l ve s ” ) Organisation learn i ng( “ t heor g a ni s a t i o ns y s t e ma t i c a l l y examines the way it operates to uncover patterns in its actions and the assumptions underlying these patterns and the alteration oft hos epa t t e r n s ” ) This table highlights again the difficulty in categorising some oft he‘ pODI nt e r ve n t i o ns ’ using the categories suggested by Waddell et al. (2004). This simple exercise of setting pOD interventions in the general OD context is interesting in that it begins to show the possible areas of expertise pOD practitioners have. It also puts forward ideas about other interventions pOD practitioners may want to offer in the future.
© Copyright 2024