| The conversations
begin with a discussion about purpose. It is
launched with Bob Tannenbaum (OD Founder and
Professor)and Meg Wheatley (author of Management
and the New Science, and A Simpler Way) in the
responses that follow these introductory
questions.
Individual Purpose:
Reflect on the time
when you entered into your practice of
Organization Development. Describe your stories
that would help others to learn from what you have
noticed from then-to-now. For example, when you
entered the field, did you have a reason, purpose,
or challenge that guided your path? What is
significant for you as you reflect on the purpose
of your work? What continues to keep you
energized?
| I come to OD from
PD--personal development. As a
coach/consultant in the early days, I
realized you couldn't help people develop
without the organization developing. As W.
E. Deming said in his 85/15 rule, about 85%
of the time it is the system, not the
person. Yet, why do so many organizations
hire people to develop a "particular"
person.
Someone captured a
Peter Senge quote: "What folly to think of
developing the learning capabilities of
organizations independent from the learning
capabilities of the individuals within
them."
So my purpose in
being here is to continue to encourage OD
folks to consider a systems approach without
forgetting about personal development. Now,
that is going to seem pretty funny to OD
people. There he is trying to tell us about
a systems approach, yet I'll ask each one of
you like I did a large OD group lately. How
many of you have a personal learning agenda
in place as a developmental plan or map?
If you're like them,
you'll come up with zero. Somehow or
another, you've gotten lost in your own
pursuit of the complex adaptive system. We
split everything into camps of OD and PD,
although no one calls it PD. They call it
psychology, adult development, coaching,
etc. Anything to keep everything split, yet
it has to come together. If OD doesn't
start thinking of working more PD, then
you're going to sub-optimize the
organization, as more and more free agents
are operating outside of your "system."
These free agents
are affecting the "complex adaptive system"
as viewed through an organizational lens.
It is also about the complex adaptive system
that we as humans as also representative of
and active within. At some point, what has
to happen is us to view the micro and macro
elements as a whole and stop thinking that
OD or PD are systems that are driven by each
other. Of course that is the newtonian
view, however the quantum view forces us to
consider the whole, not just as an
organizational system, but a system of
systems. Automatically, I see opportunity
and challenge. |
|
| Our second area of
discussion is purpose -- our own, and that of
our field. We begin with some inital discussion
from Bob Tannenbaum and Meg Wheatley.
Personal Principles:
Reflect on the
foundational personal principles that guide your
work. What are they? How have your principles
guided the type of work you accept and how you
do your work? How have your principles been
challenged within certain systems? How you
resolved those challenges? What messages or
questions about operating principles do you have
for other practitioners? Regarding your role,
do you see yourself as a neutral facilitator
helping others through change, or as an activist
of your principles? What is the appropriate
balance for OD and why?
| In response to
this piece, I have already addressed a
pretty broad swatch in purpose, however
let me add a couple of points.
1. The principle
of Responsibility, Accountability and
Authority. In this recent contribution I
made to the field (www.coachingedge.com/papers/raa.htm),
I quoted this piece from an OD Text, I
believe it was Organizational Learning II
by Argyris.
“Organizational
practitioners are, of necessity, agents-experient.
Only in a fantasy or by way of retreat can
they afford the luxury of becoming
spectators. They are in the situations
they try to understand, and they help to
form them by coming to see and act in them
in new ways. Through their [AE]
perceptions, words, and thoughts as well
as their actions, they help to construct
the objects of their inquiry. They are
designers, not in the special sense of the
design professions but in a more inclusive
sense: they make things under conditions
of complexity and uncertainty. The
products they design include products and
services, policies, marketing strategies,
information systems, organizational roles
and structures, jobs, compensation
schemes, and career ladders. They may
even become designers of whole
organizations.”
In my view, what
Argyris states is the principle that OD
takes responsibility, accountability and
authority for outcomes. This creates a
good deal of danger in my view, although I
agree, because this notice places OD
within the hierarchy of the command chain
at some point, not just a spectator as
admonishes against.
2. We have such
complex personal and organizational
dynamics, I often find that either PD or
OD is insufficient in effecting change, at
least change that is designed. We all
know we get change, however much of it, as
Senge, et. al noted in Dance of Change, is
by chance rather than by design.
I'm under the
opinion that we've become too arrogant for
our own good and need to step back and
view the system as alive. If so--and
there is broad agreement that it is--then
we can only perturb. Therefore, our
entire set of design and implementation
principles must be modified to consider
the effects of perturbation--leveraging
those to create the "outcome" environment
necessary for accomplishing results.
3. One last
principle.
I find that much
of OD has disenfranchised itself from
business reality and therefore is
something happening "to" the system rather
than with it. We all agree that OD can
drive behavior, outcome and results,
however much of the time, OD practitioners
are they themselves disenfranchised from
the business task. |
|
| The third area for
discussion centers on the models, methods and
tools with which we do our work. Once again, Bob
Tannenbaum and Meg Wheatley kick off the
conversation.
Models and Methods:
What are the change
models and tools that are making a difference in
your work? What models or tools are
foundational for you and why? What makes your
change efforts succeed or fail? What messages
would you like to share about your models,
methods or tools? What questions do you have
for others about models, methods or tools?
| Recently as 1995,
a very quiet model of organizational
change has functioned to produce effective
movement from no where to now here. Ralph
Kilmann, PhD who taught at Katz Business
School has formulated a macro/micro change
model in my view and identified that
clearly in Quantum Organization (2001).
We've taken that
model and pulled it together with the
perspectives informed by the Balanced
Scorecard by Kaplan and Norton with our
own model of PD (personal development)
called Strategy Focused Developmental
Coaching. This system of development is
designed to create a healthy spiral in
order to enable PD and OD to succeed.
What I've found
that most people forget is that all people
and organizations are "moving" in
accordance with life and business
conditions. Since we have a spiral of
adult development occurring, along with a
spiral of organizational development
occurring simultaneously and in concert
with all other forms of macro-economic
development occurring universally, we have
a much more complex situation that most
people can conceptualize. In fact, here
is what Levinson said in 1994.
“A major issue
that is getting practically no attention
in the management literature is the
reality in many cases the chief executive
officer does not have the conceptual
capacity to grasp the degree of complexity
that he or she must now confront. In
short, they simply do not know what they
are really up against and what is
happening to them and to their
organizations, let alone knowing what to
do about it. They simply can’t absorb the
range of information they should and
organize it from multiple sources and
focus it on the organizations’ problems in
a way that would both become vision and
strategy.”
Harry Levinson,
Why the Behemoths Fell,
American Psychologist, May 1994
On the horizon is
an additional methodology appearing called
SDi = Spiral Dynamics Integral, a
collaborative effort between Dr. Don Beck
and Ken Wilbur and many others, who are
beginning to move towards the complexity
that Levinson identifies.
The arrogance of
my model is better than your model and I
have the answer is in fact the illusion
and delusion of any form of development.
What I would like to hear a lot more
people saying is that we just don't know
enough about...what we don't know we don't
know and being to invite and include more
people into the equation. Change should
not be designed in my view...results
should be designed and then change can
serve that.
I'm continuously
reminded by a quote I heard David Whyte
make in 1999. He was telling a story
about one of his consulting assignments
and he said..."no one has to change, but
everyone has to have the
conversation...change comes from that."
|
|
|
The fourth area of the
conversation centers around the future of OD -- including
our hopes for the future and the trends we see emerging.
The Future:
Reflect on your hopes, concerns
and wishes for the future. What shifts are you noticing?
Are there trends or possibilities emerging, either at
macro or micro levels? What do you see as the greatest
needs for the future? What messages, questions, or
concerns do you want to share with other practitioners
about the future?
| We are "in" the future.
The cry of soul into the
canyons created by the rivers of work echo the lost
spirit of the living...while reminding us that this is
all made up.
I'm reminded of the Microsoft
byline...(slightly modified)
What would you like to make up
today?
If we can find a way to step
back from the game long enough to see that it is one,
perhaps we can find the compassion that the Dalai Lama
speaks to, models and practices. While I'm not
religious in any sort, I do find that what goes around
comes around and when I read the comments from the
Dalai Lama from his Central Park Speech in 1999, I
find the words applicable to us presently as we
grapple with what to do...design and create--in the
future.
From Page 11 in the
introduction: An OPEN HEART by the Dalai Lama
How should we go about this?
We can start with ourselves. We must try to develop
great perspective, looking into situations from all
angles. Usually when we face problems, we look at
them from our own point of view. We even sometimes
deliberately ignore other aspects of a situation.
This often leads to negative consequences. However,
it is very important for us to have a broader
perspective.
At the end of the speech and
the introduction from the book (P. 25 of the
introduction) he leaves us with these words and I
leave them with you.
May the poor find wealth,
Those weak with sorrow find joy.
May the forlorn find new hope,
Constant happiness and prosperity.
May the frightened cease to be
afraid,
And those bound be free.
May the weak find power,
And may their hearts join in friendship. |
| Our final area of the
conversation is questions, wishes and dialogue.
Questions, Wishes, and
Dialogue:
What are the questions you
ask yourself or you hear others ask that might help
guide your work? What are the questions that you wish
were being asked? What is the dialogue you wish we,
as practitioners, were having? What are the matters
about which you have a feeling of urgency? If you had
three wishes for other professionals, what would they
be and why?
Questions I am asking myself and others:
Who AM I?
What is important?
What is my role in this experience?
What inquiry and dialogue can be effective for
alleviating the suffering of others, in any way, in
any place?
How am I a part of the bigger picture?
What does leadership mean to me?
How do I model it to others?
How can I continue to see the world as it is, not as I
see it and what can that insight provide to me and
others in terms of our contribution?
What can I do to improve my own ability to invite and
include other perspectives, holding my own as valuable
and object, but nonetheless being open and
approachable in terms of creating space for others? |
If there are other things you would like to add to
the conversation that don't seem to fit in the topics
above, post them here. We know we haven't covered it all,
and we'll be delighted to hear what else is on your mind.
|