Any organizational change process has to start with an analysis and evaluation stage, where the resources and capabilities of the organization, or in other words the ‘system’, are analyzed and the barriers to change are identified. According to practitioners of the ‘systemic’ approach to organizational development, the analysis should not be limited to just directly focusing on areas of improvement. It involves understanding the fundamental strengths of the system and identifying opportunities to develop them and then use them to overcome the weaknesses. After evaluating the success factors, other organizational patterns and dynamics, the hypotheses are formulated. Based on these hypotheses, the key focus areas for development are identified.
A hypothesis is only a proposed explanation of an observable phenomenon. These hypotheses can be used to interpret certain dynamics, patterns and behavior of an individual, team or organization and can support the manager and consultant in his analysis. However, hypotheses are often confused with the objective truth or the reality itself. However, social reality cannot be seen in an objective way but is always constructed by the observer. The observers thus play a crucial role in formulating the hypotheses since what they express is only their own perspective. Since the formulation of hypotheses forms a vital stage in the change process, it becomes important to reduce the biases to the extent possible.
People are often biased in their observations due to a high level of involvement in issues and situations that are relatively more important to them. In other words, if two people look at the same landscape they both might see different things depending on their focus, current mood, personal situation, experience etc. A person´s position in the company, for instance, can be an influential factor on one´s social reality. A CFO might have a different focus and perception on the status of his organization than an employee or the owner of the company. Thus, in order to find the most promising solution to a problem it is useful to understand the internal models of the observers, reflect on them and build hypothesis before acting.
The relationship can be best illustrated using the figure, with the Involvement level of the observer on the vertical axis and the Extent of Biases on the horizontal axis. It is useful to understand the internal models of the observers, reflect on them and then build the hypotheses. Here we define three types of observers:
1. Primary or Resident Observers: These observers are usually the leaders, managers and employees in the organization. In general, they can be defined as those who are a direct part of the system. They have a high level of involvement in the system and largely present their own perspective of the organization, since they are directly affected by the various aspects of the system.
2. Transient Observers: This category usually represents consultants, who observe the organization and interact with the primary observers to gather their insights and perspectives about the system. They also observe aspects of the organization that are not mentioned explicitly by the primary observers and examine why these aspects are neglected. However, as they build relationships with people in the system, there is a strong tendency for the transient observers to become integrated into the system, leading to formation of perspectives. Their views and observations however are biased to a lesser extent compared to those of the primary observers due to a comparatively lower extent of involvement.
3. Remote or Distant Observers: Remote observers are those who analyze the various factors that lead to potential biases in the system and bring in a fresh perspective to the observations. The difference between a distant and transient observer is that the latter gathers information from people within the organization, i.e. the primary observers, and analyzes it. The former on the other hand is a complete outsider to the system, and ‘observes the observer’. Distant observers can help sharpen the entire process of hypotheses development.
In practice however, the three levels of observations could be done by one person or by a team by merely acknowledging the diverse perspectives that stem from different levels of involvement in the system.
It is natural for people to have diverse perspectives. We need to bear in mind that the goal in this case is not to single out the best among the different perspectives but rather to disclose the hidden and most important aspects in the organization, which require attention. We must treasure the perspectives of all three categories of observers and actively use them to formulate better hypotheses and hence focus on the right areas for organizational development.
Niranjan Srinivasan (along with Mag. Christine Wawra begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting)
The authors are practicing consultants at Doujak Corporate Development - www.doujak.eu - dealing with Change Management & Strategy Implementation
For more details, feel free to contact me at ninja.srini@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment