|
Relation with logic of will
diagnostic methods
conflicts
Example of my approach
Relation with logic
From the logic of Feeling in Organizations, a diagnosis focuses on the following
questions: What logic is being followed here? What does the model for the
development of the organisation’s capacities look like in this organisation? And
then: How can this logic be further developed to increase the organisation’s
performance and learning capability?
The principles of the logic of will have consequences for the diagnostic method:
·
It takes time to get to know an organisation’s stratification
>> a quick initial diagnosis is not adequate
·
The various models of reality can only be brought into focus if you look from
multiple viewpoints
>> apply multiple diagnostic methodologies
·
Models of reality arise from the natural system, the social system of rules, and
of the communicative self-steering system
>> involve people from the organisation and the context wherever
possible
>> examine what system a model of reality functions in
·
Do not make statements regarding truth or reality, because multiple realities
exist within an organisation
>> only make statements regarding what you observe and what you are
feeling
Diagnostic methods
In order to prevent constriction, I use multiple diagnostic methodologies, for
instance:
·
Making Causal Loop Diagrams: ordering and structuring of variables and their
interrelations
·
Group Model Building: making CLDs with a group of people (VENNIX). Working
methodology and usage: see
·
Naturalistic Inquiry: brings complex causalities and meaning into focus
(ERLANDSON, GUBA & LINCOLN)
·
Soft System Methodology: bring various pictures of reality into view (SENGE,
CHECKLAND, VAN DER HEIJDEN)
·
Strategic Conversation:
What does quality mean in this organisation? Where does this come from?
Conflicts
The manner in which a conflict is viewed gives a picture of the system it
operates in:
·
Natural system (fear, argument, alienation, violence)
·
Social system (legal conflicts, injustices, anger, demonstration, protest)
·
Communicative system (miscommunication, self-denial, depression, distress,
destructive behaviour)
Anecdotes, jokes, and cartoons are symbols of logical conflicts. They are ways
of bringing models of reality into view so they can be discussed. Ask about it.
Look at what symbols are used: What do they mean in your opinion and in the
opinions of the parties involved?
Is it OK to make mistakes in the organisation? How do people learn from
mistakes? Is there any experimentation?
Example of my approach
An example of steps in diagnosis, not necessarily in this order, sometimes with
repetition:
1.
Intake interview: What is the problem, the issue? When is the organisation
considered to be running well? How can you tell? Are my observations in line
with the responses? What does my intuition tell me about this? Where does that
feeling come from? During the intake interview, agree to a multi-day
investigation.
2.
Desk research: collect a wealth of information, learn the client's language on
paper, get to know the context. What is the primary process? How is the money
earned? Where is value added?
3.
What developments are at play in the context and within the organisation.
4.
During the investigation, strive to involve as much of the organisation as
possible (and preferably clients as well) in discussions or work meetings. In
any case, representatives from every “echelon”.
5.
Who says what about what? How do they do things here?
6.
Discuss the findings from the investigation, as well as the follow-up, and
preferably make an offer at an hourly rate with a global estimate. This will
facilitate making adjustments as you go.
7.
For the discussions/actions/work meetings, I do draw up a carefully prepared
scenario. Often the designing is done in a design team of key stake holders.
Subsequent adjustment to adapt to the here and now in the implementation, with
as much improvisation as is necessary.
8.
Evaluate progress regularly with the client.
to
design
|
