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.