Harlene Anderson, Ph.D.
Postmodern-Social
Construction Collaborative Practices:
Creating Successful Relationships, Conversations & Possibilities
HarleneAnderson:
COLLABORATIVE
INQUIRY:
A POSTMODERN APPROACH TO ORGANIZATIONAL
J. Paul Burney, Ph.D.
Our
collaborative approach to consultation is collegial and egalitarian. It is the framework for a partnership in which
consultant and client combine expertise to explore their dilemmas
and challenges and develop new possibilities for resolving them. Whether we work with individuals or a group,
members of a family or an organization, our collaborative approach
remains the same (Anderson,
1990; Anderson & Goolishian, 1987; Anderson & Goolishian,
1988; Anderson & Swim, 1995; Goolishian & Anderson, 1987).
In organizational consultation, the method is a way of integrating
people and business strategies in building pathways to change and
success. In this paper we describe and illustrate this
postmodern approach to thinking about and working with human systems
and the problems they present.
In
its simplest form, postmodernism refers to an ideological critique
that departs radically from modernist traditions in its questioning
of the mono‑voice modernist discourse as the overarching foundation
of literary, political, and social thinking.
Although there is no one postmodernism, in general it challenges
the modernist notions of knowledge as objective and fixed, the knower
and knowledge as independent of each other, language as representing
truth and reality, and human nature as universal (Derrida, 1978; Foucault, 1972; Foucault, 1980;
Lyotard, 1984; Ricoeur, 1983; Rorty, 1979). Consequently, the postmodern perspective challenges
the technical and instrumental nature of consultation and the notion
of the consultant as the expert on organizational culture. It favors, rather, ideas of the construction
of knowledge as social, knowledge as fluid, the knower and knowledge
as interdependent, and thus knowledge as relational and the multiplicity
of “truths.” Said differently,
knowledge, and language as a vehicle for creating knowledge, are the
products of social discourse.
We
view human systems as language and meaning‑generating systems
in which people create understanding and knowledge with each other
through communicative action (Anderson
& Goolishian, 1988; Goolishian & Anderson, 1988).
Communicative action involves dialogue within a system for
which the communication has relevance.
An organization is one kind of language and meaning‑generating
system that has a relevance specific to itself.
For organizations that seek consultation, our relevant role
is to join them as they seek a solution to a problem.
From
a postmodern perspective, then, organizational consultation is a linguistic
event that involves and takes place in a particular kind of conversational
process, a dialogue. Dialogue,
the essence of the process, entails shared inquiry‑‑a
mutual search and coexploration between client and consultant and
among the client system members‑‑into their narratives
about the organization and its members (Anderson, 1995). The shared inquiry is fluid, and it encourages
new ideas and viewpoints to be advanced in the conversation. Client and consultant, and client system members,
become conversational partners in the telling, inquiring, interpreting,
and shaping of the narratives.
Dialogical
conversation involves both internal and external dialogues as people
talk with themselves and with each other.
The internal dialogue consists of a person’s internal unformed
and forming thoughts and ideas. In
this process possibilities come from within and are generated in and
through the inherent and creative aspects of language, dialogue, and
narrative. Transformation occurs
within such a collaborative process as the participants generate and
explore multiple descriptions, stories, and perspectives.
That is, through dialogue, through the evolution of shifting,
clarifying, and expanding meanings and understandings, and as a natural
consequence of it, new narratives and new possibilities emerge.
We think of this newness as self‑agency:
the ability to act, or to feel that we are capable of acting,
to handle our dilemmas in a competent and autonomous manner.
As
consultants, our aim, expertise, and responsibility is to create a
dialogical space and to facilitate a dialogical process.
How does the consultant achieve this aim? We assume what we refer to as a philosophical
stance‑‑a way of being in relationship with, thinking
about, acting with, and responding to people (Anderson,
1995). It is a way of
being that serves as the backdrop for the conversation.
The stance is characterized by an attitude of openness to,
respect for, curiosity about, and connection with the other.
It entails flexibility and willingness to follow the client’s
ranking of what is most important to him or her.
Although as consultants we may initially have a structure or
outline for the consultation‑‑a stepping stone toward
the process‑‑we do not operate from a set agenda of our
own or with preconceived ideas concerning the direction the conversation
should take or what its outcome would be.
Any idea about the format or direction of the consultation
is tentative, and we are poised to change it at any time.
The task is to create and continue the dialogue and discover
with the client what is significant.
The
most critical aspect of this stance is “not‑knowing.” Not‑knowing refers to the assumption that
we do not know what is best for the other person or how they ought
to be conducting their business. We
do not suggest that we are tabulae rasa but what we do know, or what
we think we know, is only one perspective that is always open to challenge. Nor do we imply that if someone were to ask
us a question we would not respond.
The difference is in the manner in which and the intent with
which we would respond. The
consultant’s not‑knowing invites members of the client group
to be the teachers, the experts on the circumstances of the consultation,
and it naturally acts to involve them in a shared inquiry with us
and with each other. Shared
inquiry only happens, however, when the consultant’s curiosity maintains
coherence with clients and is not too far removed from their experience
(Anderson, 1993; Anderson & Goolishian, 1992).
Not‑knowing questions, for instance, should not cause
the client to be distracted from his or her train of thought.
As
consultants we are more curious and interested in each person’s ideas
about his or her organization and the manner in which it operates
than in proposing our own ideas. This
is not to say that we will not offer reflections on ideas and thoughts
when asked by the client for feedback or opinions.
Our ideas and thoughts, however, are set forth in a manner
that allows the client to consider them and to correct us if they
are not consistent with the client’s point of view.
We offer our contributions tentatively, with genuine interest
and a desire to hear more of the client’s narrative concerning the
organization’s dilemmas and challenges, including the client’s expectations
of the consultation.
This
conversational style and attitude enables us to operate from a position
of curiosity about the client’s dilemmas and a desire to acquire understanding.
We listen actively to the narrative being presented
to ensure we have not misunderstood, and we continuously check out
what we think we have heard. By
asking conversational questions in a manner that encourages the client
to say more about the subject being discussed, and by verifying rather
than assuming that what we think we have heard is what the client
wanted us to hear, we explore the client’s part in the conversation.
Conversational questions are questions that are informed both
by what has been said and what has not yet been said.
The intent is not to receive an answer, steer in a direction,
or create a narrative that we deem more useful or correct than the
one we are hearing. The intent is to learn, explore, and clarify
the client’s narrative in a manner that enhances the dialogue. At
the same time we know that the context of the consultation, the manner
in which it is conducted, the client’s intent, and the experiences
and prejudices we bring to the consultation are all variables that
influence our curiosity and the style, choice, and type of our questions.
When
a consultant assumes this stance, consultation is changed from an
archeological, hierarchical, and interventionist relationship between
an expert and nonexpert to a collaborative, egalitarian, and mutual
endeavor by people with different types of expertise.
Client members who view themselves as important parts of the
dynamic process of change become actively and enthusiastically engaged. Consultants become facilitators of the dialogue
regarding the concerns of the client instead of experts expected to
provide solutions. As we become
conversational partners with our client,
the dialogue brings forth new ways of thinking and acting regarding
dilemmas, problem‑solving, communications, relationships, and
ourselves as individuals.
In
this kind of process the consultant is also at risk of changing. In our experience, the approach is a philosophical
one: the consultant’s beliefs
and biases are not only part
of the consultant’s professional work, they become a way of being
in our professional and personal lives.
Our approach frees us to work in a variety of organizational
settings, with individuals and groups, without regard to gender, culture,
or type of dilemma. Interestingly,
we have found that, in a sense, our stance models new and alternative
ways for client system members to be with each other, even though
modeling is not our intention.
In
this paper we present a narrative of our consultation with Friendly
Travel, a corporate client, as illustration of the collaborative process. We hope to show how the consultation set a collaborative
tone, and how it provided the opportunity for multiple, crisscrossing
dialogues by which the client system’s members collaboratively defined
their dilemmas and created possibilities for addressing them. We hope also to show the evolution of newness
through collaboration and shared inquiry and how it was peculiar to
the conversational process.
We
were invited to provide a seven and one‑half hour consultation
to a small organization in the travel‑tourism industry, to address
issues of communication and interpersonal staff relationships, and
to help create a more cohesive, effective team.
The client organization is a full‑service resource provider
to individuals, businesses, and organizations in a small recreational,
agricultural community in Texas that has as its market a larger, countywide
suburban residential and technological business community.
The company has one owner and 17 employees, all of them women. The agency has one main office and two satellites.
A
member of the consulting team is an acquaintance of the owner who,
in previous conversations, discussed some of the internal and external
dilemmas she was experiencing in her organization.
The internal changes the client wanted to make concerned staff
interpersonal relationships and enhanced service to her customers. She expressed ideas about building the foundations
for a better team and developing “connectedness” within her organization.
In her words,
“The
dominant culture of the airline industry has had a major impact on
us. The negativity directed at us, as travel agents,
from the airlines, and the continuous change in the industry, has caused
us to be reactive instead of proactive.
We need to find a way to circumvent it.”
Not only did this represent a major dilemma
for her company, but its current structure and employee relationships,
she believed, did not allow the agency to address such issues successfully.
The
owner expressed interest in a day‑long consultation that might
be somewhat different from one conducted by a consultant retained
by the organization in the past. She
said she hoped that plans could be formulated that would be helpful
to her and her employees individually and to the organization as a
whole. She warned, however, that the employees, “would
be reluctant because of the negative experience with the previous
consultant, and resistant about attending on their day off.”
The
owner has a high profile in her community; she volunteers a large
portion of her time to civic organizations such as the County Fair
Association, Performing Arts Society, Chamber of Commerce, American
Cancer Society, and she serves on the board of directors of the local community
college. Part of her motivation
is that she is known as a talented, energetic, and well‑respected
business person in the community, someone who can get things done. Another consideration is that community involvement
is personally rewarding and makes good business sense. The organization is uniquely positioned in a
continually changing industry that requires rapid response and leaves
little time for proactive measures.
The
Consultation’s Structure
Our
consultation began with the owner’s interview and discussion of her
objectives. The consultants
then discussed the structure of the consultation day and confirmed
it with the owner. It was to
consist of introductions, opening comments, an experiential activity,
partner interviews, small and large group discussions, and reflective
conversations. Ninety days later a follow‑up interview
by one of the consultants with the owner led to plans for another
day of consultation.
Conversation with the Owner: Shared Inquiry Begins
A
consulting team member met with the owner before the group consultation
to determine how the consultants might help her and what she hoped
to accomplish. By introducing the client to the collaborative
process, their initial meeting began the consultation. The consultant set the stage for collaboration
by inviting the owner as the expert, to participate in a conversation
about her organization and its dilemmas (Anderson, 1993). The consultant’s inquiries concerned the focus
of her business, her main objectives and special challenges, as well
as what she considered to be her organization’s strengths and weaknesses.
In
the initial conversation we learned that her primary goal was to “build
a better team that gets along and works together more efficiently.” She characterized her organization’s current
dilemma as “disorganization.” She
felt her organization’s greatest weakness was “our lack of teamwork.” This affected the organization internally through
employee relationships and organizational structure, as well as externally,
by making it less responsive to the requirements of clients and the
travel‑tourism industry. A
more efficient team would help the owner accomplish three main objectives: to increase overall business, streamline internal
operations, and expand meeting and convention business. The organization’s strengths were, she said,
“Our knowledge and personal attention to our customers’ concerns and
our longevity in the business.” The
employees were knowledgeable, and they devoted a great deal of personal
attention to each customer’s needs.
Their services had, in fact, become so individually tailored
that they thought of the organization’s customers as “my clients.” The owner’s attempts at changing this attitude
had been unsuccessful because of the staff’s concerns that change
in their customer service would affect the quality of their product. Thus, an asset, concentration on individuality,
had become a liability.
Introductions
An
important consideration for the consultants is the manner in which
to begin the consultation day, so that the staff will understand that
the day’s interchange depends on their input.
An expert, hierarchical approach would conflict with the Collaborative
Language Systems philosophy of generating ideas publicly and collaboratively. From the beginning we considered the way in
which we would introduce ourselves to the group and present what we
knew, at that time, about their organization and its problems.
The
consultants introduced themselves briefly, discussed their experience,
and expressed their enthusiasm for the opportunity of working with
the group. We shared what we had learned from the conversation
with the owner about the internal problems of teamwork and communication
and the external problems with the travel‑tourism industry,
as we understood them. We also
expressed our wish that the group would use the consultation day in
a manner that would be most helpful and productive for them.
We presented the nonexpert concept:
as consultants we were not experts who knew the solutions to
their dilemmas but were present as collaborative partners in a process
of mutual discovery‑‑“a process we do with you rather
than to you” (Anderson, 1990; Anderson, 1993; Anderson & Goolishian,
1992). Ideally, the process would generate new thoughts
and useful ideas for their organization.
Then
we asked the owner to share her version of the history that preceded
the consultation day, her agenda, and her hope.
She briefly summarized the first “official” consultation conversation
and discussed the organization’s previous consulting experience, which
had not been helpful or productive.
The previous consultant had lectured them about what was wrong
and what needed to be done, rather than addressing their specific
concerns. The owner also acknowledged
resentment about scheduling the consultation on a nonworking day,
since many staff members were vocal about “being here on my day off
because the owner signs my paycheck.” She expressed her expectations to the staff
that this consultation would be different.
She presented her ideas, as told to the consultant, about their
shared organizational dilemmas.
We invited the staff members to introduce themselves
and to discuss why they were here and what they hoped to gain from
the experience.
Several
elements were important in setting the stage for the collaborative
process. First, the consultants’
introduction was nonhierarchical in manner, and it included their
understanding of the organization’s dilemmas and expectations for
the consultation, based on the conversation with the owner.
The consultants’ role was one of inquiry, not expertise. As facilitators we hoped to initiate a process
of discovery, exploring innovative ideas that might prove beneficial
to the organization, rather than providing solutions to the organization’s
problems. Second, the owner,
in her brief introduction, discussed the reasons for the consultation,
her belief that it would be different from a previous, unsuccessful
one, and that the consultants’ collaborative style would benefit the
organization. Third, the owner presented her perceptions of
the organization’s concerns to the group, emphasizing that they may
or may not match those of the other group members.
Fourth, the invitation to staff members to introduce themselves,
to state why they were present and what they hoped to gain from the
consultation, helped to initiate the collaborative process.
We
are interested in the individual group member’s hypotheses about her
or his organization, rather than in hypotheses of our own. Our aim in using the Collaborative Language
Systems philosophy is to create a dialogical space and stimulate conversation
focused on hypotheses set forth by the client (Anderson, 1995). The collaborative manner in which participants
are encouraged to express their ideas and opinions may differ from
the organization’s usual operational style and lead to a more productive
outcome.
Experiential
Activity: “Group Juggle”
We
chose an experiential activity we hoped would be inviting and aid
the client in developing a different style of team communication. Designed to be enjoyable while allowing the
group to loosen up mentally and physically and move about, the activity
increased the possibilities for interaction within the group. Experiential activity and physical movement
can be effective stimuli in engaging participants and providing an
opportunity to be open, active, and creative.
Activity is also a basis for discussing important aspects of
communication, such as focus, concentration, and the ability to listen
effectively. Experiential activities
effectively set the collaborative tone:
all members of the group participate on an equal basis, instead
of the clients participating as a group and consultants observing
as outsiders (Fluegelman, 1981).
The
group was asked to stand in a circle as one of the consultants placed
10 balls in the center of the floor.
Asked to throw the balls to one another, they began by throwing
balls indiscriminately while dropping most of them.
They described their first reactions to the activity as “total
chaos.” The consultant then addressed one of the participants
and, gently, threw the ball to her. After she had caught the ball, she was asked
to name another group member and throw the ball in the same manner. The sequence continued until everyone in the
circle had caught and tossed many balls.
The
consultant asked, “How many balls do you think you can toss around
the circle without dropping any?”
A discussion ensued about setting a realistic number, and the
group attempted, rather unsuccessfully, to juggle three balls.
As the discussion continued, the group suggested changes that
could be made to improve their performance.
In their next attempt, the group successfully juggled three
balls around the circle and gave themselves a round of applause.
Asked
about this change in performance, the participants said that communicating
what they needed from each other and group concentration had made
the attempt successful. The
consultant challenged the group to use their new knowledge and repeat
the game with a new goal concerning the number of balls.
They agreed on 10 balls. When
the activity ended, there were 13 objects in the middle of the circle,
including a rubber chicken, a bat, and an alligator.
This time the group achieved their goal very effectively. The activity was fast‑paced, and the introduction
of the last three objects caused a lot of spontaneous laughter and
confusion.
Each
participant then had the opportunity to reflect on her impressions
of the experience. The introduction
of new elements in the activity and the effect on group effort led
to a discussion concerning the organization’s styles of communication,
which they felt may take place in unanticipated ways.
One member commented that no one had been able individually
to juggle three balls, but together they had juggled 13 objects.
Ongoing, effective communication had allowed the group to accomplish
more than any one individual could do, and it had allowed the introduction
of new and unexpected elements. Experiential
exercises, as “physical metaphors,” illustrated concepts of effective
communications and teamwork for the group.
The
Partner Interview
The
group members were asked to form teams of two and to interview their
partners. They were asked for
their initial responses to four questions:
Why are you here? What
do you hope to leave with? What
do you see as your organization’s primary dilemma?
and What do you see as your organization’s primary
strength? Two other questions
were optional: What do you
think people need to know about you?
and What misunderstandings do you think people have
about you?
Each
team member introduced her partner to the group and reported the partner’s
responses. Each respondent
was encouraged to listen and reflect on the manner in which her partner
presented her answers and to hear how the partner interpreted and
expressed her answers. Throughout
the day the consultants recorded each team’s responses on a 24” x
36” pad displayed for the other group members.
Recording discussions for the group to see highlighted the
fact that the consultants listened carefully to the group members’
comments. The group members had the opportunity to see
as well as hear the responses, which were referred to during subsequent
discussions and provided the group with permanent notes about the
consultation.
An
important part of the Collaborative Language Systems philosophy is
that, throughout the consultation, information is publicly shared. The partner interviews allow team members to
develop and share ideas about the organization and their expectations
concerning the consultation. Many
group members had concerns about “being criticized,” or “fixed,” and that “only the owner’s ideas would
be presented.”
This
type of activity has several other advantages.
The participants are eased into working together in a new fashion
by starting, in pairs, with a small activity rather than a large group‑oriented
one. However, they become comfortable
in presenting ideas to the group by introducing their partners and
his or her ideas, rather than first discussing their own.
Small
Group Inquiry
We
began the Small Group Inquiry by dividing the clients into three groups
and asking each group to spend 30 minutes discussing six questions: What is the organization’s number‑one
dilemma? How does it work against
the effectiveness of the organization?
What factors contribute to this dilemma?
How have you tried to resolve this dilemma?
What needs to be done to resolve this dilemma? and How would the organization be more effective
if this dilemma were resolved?
The
consultants asked the participants to think of the questions as a
springboard from which to generate and develop ideas, as well as an
opportunity to brainstorm about possibilities. The owner was asked to move among the groups
as a silent observer for two reasons:
to give the participants the opportunity to talk without her
involvement, and to allow her to listen to the discussions first‑hand,
because it is difficult to recreate the richness of a conversation.
Small
group members enthusiastically shared their answers to the questions
with the whole group. Group
I stated that their primary dilemmas were “communication and a lack
of leadership.” Group II said their problems were “a lack of
communication throughout the organization, the unavailability of management,
and a lack of personal responsibility.”
Group III listed their dilemmas as the attitudes of their clients,
co‑workers, themselves, their employer, their families, and
the consequence to the organization’s effectiveness.
Group III also stated that effectiveness was diminished by
leaving problems unaddressed and unresolved, which “leads to conflicts,
frustration, and confusion resulting in errors, anger, and negative
attitudes.”
The groups described a number of factors
that, they believed, contributed to the dilemmas: “a lack of respect for each other,” “inconsistency in leadership,” “failure to follow through on tasks,” “fear of reprisal,” “negativity,” and “rudeness.” They also expressed concerns that management
did not spend enough time on‑site with them and that personnel
training was inadequate. Staff
meetings were the usual mode of resolving dilemmas, but there was
no follow‑through on proposed solutions, which, ultimately,
led to an avoidance of the issues. They concluded that what was needed was “consistent
leadership,” “training,” “realistic policies,” “rules,” “structure,”
and “more positive interaction.” They stated that positive change and reinforcement
needed to start at the management level and filter down. If they were able to resolve their dilemmas,
they said, the organization would become more productive and efficient,
which would lead to better understanding and a more pleasant, helpful
work environment. Developing
confidence and unity in the office would result in improved customer
service, they said.
The
short, impressionistic answers given to the questions by the small
groups introduced multiple perspectives on topics of importance to
the organization. The Small
Group Inquiry provides the opportunity for multiple voices as well
as the individual’s voice to be heard, and it encourages participants
to engage in their own conversations concerning the organization.
This process initiates conversations for the larger group process,
and it dramatizes the importance of group members’ presentation of
their ideas and solutions while the owner and the consultants listen (Anderson & Goolishian, 1992).
Large
Group Reflection
Ideas
about the dilemmas, initially generated by the Small Group Inquiry,
were expanded during the Large Group Reflection.
The discussion created the opportunity for generative conversations.
The participants were invited to think about the various ideas
and suggestions offered by the small groups, and to find common threads
and similarities, as well as distinctions among the groups.
A great deal of comment concerned communication‑‑primarily
the lack of open communication within the organization.
The small groups also stated that there were “too many chiefs”;
they felt “understaffed and stressed”; there was “pettiness and jealousy,”
along with “negative attitudes and a few combative personalities.”
While
engaged in the Collaborative Language System process, our experience
has been that individuals described as “resistant” or “combative”
in their personal relationships often change, very quickly, to a response
characterized by openness, and that they communicate without fear
of reprisal. The open and nonhierarchical manner in which
the consultants began the workshop and their continuing collaborative
stance was a critical factor in creating a safe environment in which
noncollaborative behavior could begin to change, in a pattern that
routinely occurs at this level of open communication.
This was not necessarily our intent, but we have observed it
to occur invariably.
As
the group’s agenda evolved, perceptions of problems and interpersonal
relations began to change, with participants reporting “feeling respected,” “being heard,” and “taken seriously.”
The
Large Group Reflections generated many ideas concerning dilemmas: lack of effective communication, lack of responsibility,
lack of adequate continuous training, “turf” issues, and management
issues. Group members identified
the lack of effective communication within their organization, with
their clients, and with the industry as their primary concern.
The
group members expressed a need for consistent information open to
everyone. Poor communication,
in their words, “creates a hesitancy to ask or answer questions.” In one employee’s words, “I have a fear of asking
questions because of reprisal.” The
group members characterized this dilemma as the cause of “pressure
and stress contributing to decisions being made in crisis.”
Difficulties
in coordinating the agency’s activities from three separate locations
was identified as another factor in the overall lack of communication. Several office locations received company mail,
memoranda, and tickets on a timely basis while others did not. They described the agency’s interoffice communications
system “as if everything fell into a black hole”; information was
not received in a systematic or timely manner. The lack of effective communication resulted
in “no follow‑through on tasks,”
“a lack of respect for each other,” and “expectations being
unfulfilled.”
Organizational
Dilemmas
Several
group members talked about the influence on the staff of the owner’s
involvement in charitable and civic organizations. Some ideas expressed in group discussions were
that “she (the owner) works better under pressure, but some of us
do not,” and that “when she is pressured, it affects all of us.” The added pressure of upcoming community events
was also expressed as “a dread of the Cattle Barons’ Ball or the Chamber
of Commerce events.”
A
hectic atmosphere prevailed in the offices, and “just do it” was the
staff’s attitude and approach to tasks.
They characterized the organization as one that had grown in
response to the community’s demands for service, not necessarily as
the result of an opportunity to develop a long‑term strategic
plan.
The
staff struggled with aspects of team cooperation while dealing with
the practical dilemmas of systems hardware, communication, and the
internal operations of the organization.
The staff characterized the “feeding‑frenzy” environment
as contributing to a “contagious” attitude of individuals treating
others with little regard or respect for boundaries.
The staff had trouble with issues of relationship integrity,
while communication was indirect, instead of direct, open, and inclusive. Adding to the “contagious” attitude were pressures
from the travel‑tourism industry and the organization’s clients.
The
staff members’ conversation identified concerns and insecurities about
“turf,” fear of losing their clients to the “organization,” and they
raised such questions as, “Whose clients are they?”
“Does the client belong to us (the employees) or are they Friendly
Travel’s clients?”
Another
area identified as problematic was a lack of responsibility in implementing
procedures concerning client relations.
Who had the authority to implement procedures was unclear to
the staff. They also discussed a lack of compassion and acceptance
among staff members regarding different personalities and work styles.
Among
management issues the group identified inadequate policies, procedures,
and job descriptions, all of which, they believed, resulted in multiple
and overlapping responsibilities, and thus confusion.
The staff characterized the management team as being unavailable
and the chain of command and responsibility as being blurred. They raised questions about the management team’s
inability to take time to listen patiently to their concerns and suggestions.
To
allow her more time to pursue other interests, the owner had appointed
a manager for each office to supervise daily operations. The entire group agreed that an individual staff
member’s relationship with the owner was of great importance. Concern about the underlying sense of competition
was expressed by the comment, “Everyone wants to be the owner’s pal.”
They
described inadequate training as hindering new employees from being
easily incorporated into the organization’s work force. The absence of continuous training for the staff
made it difficult to stay current on changing policies within the
organization and with the dynamics of the travel‑tourism industry. Although there was unanimous agreement on this
issue, it had gone unresolved for more than two years.
The
large group reflections and “cross‑talking” about ideas initiated
the process of conceptualizing possible solutions to the group’s dilemmas. In a collaborative consultation, solutions develop
and evolve continually. The
solutions the group determined to be most effective for their organization
were the end‑result of the process, and they are presented later
in the article.
Consultants’
Discussion
The collaborative process, introduced
during the early stages of the consultation, tends to create a conversational
attitude, so that informal discussions continue during breaks, at
lunch, and over coffee throughout the day.
Group members reflect on various ideas that surface during
informal conversations, and they often bring their insight to the
larger group discussions.
During
the lunch break, with the group members listening, the consultants
reflected on the morning’s activities and brainstormed about the afternoon
(Andersen, 1991; Andersen, 1995; Anderson & Goolishian, 1991). By talking openly, we allow clients access to
our thoughts, shared ideas, and discussions, reinforcing the collaborative
aspect of the team’s reflections.
There were no secrets about our impressions of the organization
and the staff’s concerns.
The
afternoon began with the “As If” group activity, whose content had
evolved from the lunch‑break conversation.
The
“As If” Group Activity
The
“As If” group activity and discussion stimulates an awareness of thought
processes and invites the participants to voice their ideas (Anderson,
1990; Anderson & Goolishian, 1990; Anderson & Rambo, 1988;
St. George, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa,
1994). The “As If” group’s multiplicity of perspectives
mirrors that of an individual who, at any given time, may think about
many, often contradictory, ideas.
The individual, while engaged in the act of listening, is concurrently
engaged in an inner dialogue.
The
group activity provides participants an opportunity to (1) develop awareness of how each participant
in the organization experiences and thinks about various dilemmas; (2) experience the diversity of individual perceptions
and points of view; (3) discuss
ideas in a public forum instead of an exclusive or private setting; (4) experience shifts or changes in perspectives;
and (5) experience the style
and types of questions or comments that invite conversation, while
becoming aware of the types of statements that cut it off (Anderson,
1990; Anderson & Goolishian, 1990; Anderson & Rambo, 1988;
St. George, unpublished dissertation, 1994).
Determining
which dilemmas would be presented, the group decided that the owner
would present a dilemma to the “As If” groups from her view of the
situation. The participants, organized into three groups
again, were asked to listen “as if” they were members of one of the
following groups: the travel‑tourism industry, the organization’s
clients, or the organization’s staff.
They were asked to listen while placing “on hold” any emerging
ideas, questions, or comments.
The
“As If” groups were asked to talk about the presented dilemma, pose
questions, and offer suggestions or advice they thought might speed
its resolution. The owner moved among the groups and listened.
Each group then shared a synopsis of the group members’ discussion
of the dilemma from the various “As If” perspectives of industry,
clients, or staff. The owner and the other two groups listened
without questions or comments. After
each group concluded its report, the other participants reflected
on what they had heard. Thus,
the “As If” groups were a catalyst for the large group process; they
generated a wealth of information and led to a spirited discussion
of solutions, including establishment of short‑term goals and
the proposal of a new business structure for the organization, all
developed solely from the participants’ ideas.
Proposed
“Solutions”
The
“As If” exercise solidified a shift in focus from problems to possibilities.
In the general discussion that followed, the participants generated
various ideas about their goals and possible strategies for initiating
change in their organization. They developed specific ideas about
job descriptions, training manuals, policies and procedures, communication,
and changes in the organizational structure. They characterized their solutions as new beginnings
for their organization. Several
participants were “astounded by the openness and freedom of expressing
our ideas,” and said that “she (the owner) listened to us.” They expressed a desire to create an ongoing
dialogue with their co‑workers and “the boss.”
They
determined that an organizational structure was needed that specified
individual responsibilities and levels of decision‑making authority. They proposed a new structure in which the owner
would have the final say, while other responsibilities would be delegated
to three managers who would report directly to her. The managers would be responsible for accounting,
personnel, and training. The
new structure would also create two divisions in the agency, one for
leisure travel and related activities, the other for corporate and
convention business.
Plans
were discussed to develop job descriptions and training manuals, as
well as organizational policies and procedures, telephone technique
improvement, and more effective communication with each other and
their clients. The group members expressed the unified opinion
that the organization needed a technologically updated communication
system, and that personal interactions needed more attention. All believed that the proposed improvements
and shared recommendations would increase the organization’s productivity
and profitability. As one person
expressed it, “Friendly Travel would become ‘Friendlier Travel.’”
Reflective
Conversation with the Owner
Afterward
one of the consultants engaged the owner in a reflective conversation
about her thoughts, the information generated by the group, and her
experience of the consultation as a whole.
The reflective conversation was not intended to be an evaluation
of the consultation day, but it is an aspect of the collaborative
process of sharing thoughts in a public, inclusive fashion (Andersen,
1991; Andersen, 1995).
In
this case, the interview was spontaneous rather than planned. While one of the consultants talked to the owner,
the group members were asked to listen without comment. Often this process creates new awareness for
the interviewee, the group members, and the consultants. The owner responded during the interview that,
“I was amazed by the great ideas, the group’s enthusiasm, and how
helpful and freeing the experience has been.”
The
consultation day was concluded as each participant voiced her ideas
about the owner’s reflections and the day in general.
The owner and consultants offered closing comments as well. Several participants mentioned their initial
resistance to the consultation: “I
did not want to come today but am glad I did because it was totally
different from my expectations,” and “Even though I had to come on
my day off, it was worth the effort.”
The participants described the day as passing quickly and felt
that the experiential exercise had created the opportunity to view
dilemmas in the office in a different way. Several comments concerned the experiential
activity and that “It has been a while since we’ve laughed and had
fun together.” The participants
had enjoyed the enthusiasm and “moving around rather than sitting
and being lectured.” They expressed amazement at the wealth of information
produced in a short time and mentioned the open and nonjudgmental
way the consultants had related to the group.
Several
participants discussed new impressions of their coworkers. The consultation had allowed them to relate
to one another in a new way, outside the office, and this, they felt,
would carry over when they returned to work.
They also discussed the ways the group members had communicated
with one another. The owner
expressed her appreciation to the consultants “for their time and
efforts in making the day a unique and helpful experience” and thanked
the group “for doing a great job.”
The
consultants commented on the amount of information the group had discovered
in collaborative conversations and “our continuing fascination with
the process.” They remarked
on the group’s spirit of enthusiasm and on the positive attitudes
that had developed over the course of the day, despite some of the
participants’ reluctance. The consultants concluded the consultation by
thanking the owner and the staff for sharing their collaborative experience.
About
ninety days after the consultation, the owner of Friendly Travel and
one of the consultants met for a follow‑up conversation. This kind of meeting is an important continuation
of the Collaborative Language Systems process and an opportunity for
both client and consultants to review and reflect on the consultation.
The
owner commented that the style of the questions and the manner in
which they were asked by the consultants had helped the group to achieve
a high level of openness. In
fact, she said, “The group has never opened up like this before,”
and “they really loved the role‑playing.”
Since
the day of the workshop she has noticed a difference in the role staff
members play in the organization.
She described the employees as being less secretive and she
said that problems are now discussed with no stigma attached to the
person who brings the problem to the other’s attention.
Her sense was that “We are working ‘smarter,’ showing more
consideration for one another, and seem to be on an emotional upswing.”
She also indicated that the staff seemed to appreciate her
being more open and approachable, spending more time with them, and
“showing less partiality or favoritism.”
With
one exception, the employees have been more open in talking with her. The owner outlined how she has changed her role
in the organization since the consultation. She has become more active in the business and
has reorganized her management staff while delegating more authority.
She
has implemented a training program and begun to address the technical
communication problem. Two
employees, both with broad expertise in specific areas of the agency’s
business, have been chosen as designated “trouble shooters.”
The owner retains the final decision‑making responsibility
for all of the company’s activities.
Staff
Initiatives
The monthly staff and management meetings are
more open and productive, the owner reported.
The staff requested that meetings be scheduled after office
hours rather than using time devoted to their clients.
She said she believes this represents a real change in her
organization. The staff also
proposed eliminating guest speakers from the meetings, to devote more
time to discussing organizational matters.
The staff has expressed a new reliance on the “support, input,
and feedback” from their fellow staff members in problem‑solving
and new perspectives on “old problems.”
Before the consultation, she said, “if someone was snowed under
at the end of the day, at five o’clock, the others would just leave
instead of asking whether that person needed help.”
Now the staff members are more considerate of one another.
The
owner was impressed that “all of the staff seem genuinely interested
in keeping the wolf away from the door,” and the agency is generating
more business for which staff members receive an “override” commission. She said that she has revealed to her staff,
for the first time, the total dollar amounts represented by the override
commissions, so that the managers will understand more about the organization’s
financial situation. The owner
now provides, monthly, each staff member’s ranking in the company’s
total sales, income, and commissions.
She expressed an interest in scheduling another collaborative
day in six months “as a checking in on my staff’s true feelings.”
Based
on the Collaborative Language Systems approach to working with organizations,
the consultants chose to operate from a nonexpert, nonhierarchical
position, applying their expertise to the art of creating a dialogical
space. They facilitated conversations concerning the
client’s thoughts and ideas about various dilemmas her organization
was experiencing. Such conversations
often lead to solutions created by the participants and they usually
produce meaningful and durable results.
The experiential activity encouraged both physical and mental
movement, which, in conjunction with collaborative conversations,
became a catalyst for new awareness and insight.
Setting
a collaborative tone, an important part of the Collaborative Language
System’s style, begins with the initial interview of the organization’s
representative. The collaborative
tone was reinforced by the manner in which the consultants introduced
ideas, as they understood them, concerning the organization’s dilemmas
and it facilitated continuing conversations as the consultation progressed. Ideas and thoughts were pursued from the organization’s
perspective.
The
experiential activities, the Small Group Inquiry, and the Large Group
Discussions were arranged so that the participants were gradually
introduced to a nonthreatening way of generating and sharing ideas. Such an atmosphere created an open and safe
space in which dialogue could occur, and it encouraged the participants
to express their thoughts, ideas, and suggestions without fear of
ridicule or reprisal. An important
part of the process was recording the group’s ideas and suggestions,
so that the information was continually available to everyone.
The “As If” activity was especially important in that it provided
the opportunity to listen, think, and express views from different
perspectives.
The
collaborative process often creates conversation that continues after
the initial consultation. Such
conversations occur among employees informally throughout the day,
over coffee or lunch, and they continue formally during staff and
management meetings. Once introduced to a new way of communicating,
organizations often discover that conversation becomes a springboard
for advancing innovative ideas and creating solutions. As organizational members become more responsible
for implementation and rely less on external consultants as catalysts,
the organization becomes empowered to act as its own agent of change.
Andersen, T.
(1995). Reflecting processes:
Act of informing and forming:
You
Anderson, H.
(1990). Opening the
door for change through continuing the
Anderson, H.
(1993). Therapy as mutual inquiry: Combining the clients’
expertise
on themselves and the therapist’s
expertise on a process. Paper
Anderson, H. (1995). Collaborative
language systems: Toward a
postmodern
Anderson, H.,
& Goolishian, H. (1987). Language systems and therapy: An
Anderson, H.,
& Goolishian, H. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems:
Anderson, H.,
& Goolishian, H. (1990). Beyond cybernetics: Comments on
Anderson, H.,
& Goolishian, H. (1991). Thinking about multi‑agency work with
Anderson, H.,
& Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert: A not‑knowing approach to therapy. In S. McNamee
& K. J. Gergen (Eds.),
Anderson, H.,
& Rambo, A. (1988). An experiment in systemic family therapy
Anderson, H.,
& Swim, S. (1995). Supervision as collaborative conversation:
Derrida, J.
(1978). Writing and Difference (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago:
Fluegelman, A.
(1981). More New Games! and Playful
Ideas from the New
Foucault, M.
(1972). The Archeology of Knowledge. New York: Harper
Foucault, M.
(1980). Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
Goolishian, H.,
& Anderson, H. (1987). Language systems and therapy: An
Goolishian, H.,
& Anderson, H. (1988). Human systems: Some evolving ideas
Lyotard, J. F.
(1984). The Post‑Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.
Ricoeur, P.
(1983). Time and Narrative. Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy
and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
3316 Mount Vernon
harleneanderson@earthlink.net www.harlene.org
www.access-success.com
www.taosinstitute.org