Organizational Thinking

It is very interesting to be alive in these times. The paradox of our various affiliations is palpable. We (the collective we of humankind) seem to hunger deeply for connection and meaning yet our practices continue to keep us separate and alone! Using standard forms or practices (conferences, speeches, workshops, rally's, etc.) don’t seem to make a difference. Most of our jobs systematically deny our need for rich complex interactions.

My question is: What practice does make a difference? It occurs to me that like Gandhi, Mandela, & King the first step is to change ourselves. After that I think the circle radiates out in local and meaningful ways. After that maybe a revolution - but probably not. I think what I so appreciated about teaching at GU this past spring was the opportunity for a sustained conversation - but it does not escape me that the conversation was not completely voluntary - there is 'coin' involved.... the struggle we all make to survive and get the tickets (degrees) or money to meet our goals.

So how do we get around this? I think that our individual commitments is a good place to start. To meet and talk and maybe write a bit. To begin slowly to organize around a core idea (what is the idea?) and then let things happen. Community is important.

One idea I am having is about complexity - I am increasingly interested in working with complexity models to help make sense of collective phenomena. I have been working with some relatively large groups (n = 500 & n = 150) and doing qualitative analyses of a Trust construct. I am then doing frequency counts of coded data (16 coded behaviors) and then displaying the data in a color coded frequency chart. Very simple stuff but very interesting from the perspective of complex systems.

I am seeing the Trust construct as a 16 dimension phase space. The frequency counts suggest a possible interpretation as attractor basins within the space. This means (to me) that there is a tendency in the organization in question for people to behave in particular ways in reference to trust that are consistent with the attractors (big assumption here - BAH). These attractors tend to 'pull' people along their gradients in ways that are mostly unconscious (also BAH). When we can 'see' the basins (in my imagery these are whirlpools of similar memes, behaviors, and thoughts) we can then design both strategies and interventions that may help move or perturb the attractors into more or less significance.

The meta-pattern revealed by the frequency data is compelling. The salience of individual behavior frequencies was preserved across polarizing questions (the narrative data on Trust that was initially coded). So the behavior (for example ‘Tells the Truth’ was consistent across questions but particularly salient for one question (e.g., What is breaking trust?). The next step is to triangulate this frequency data with other available survey data (Likert data).

This next paragraph is pure BAH. From an individual psychological perspective I think that increased consciousness and awareness bring an acute sensitivity to these complex social topographies. I think our hearts and minds are able to recognize when we are being 'pulled' or directed toward a way of being that is either consistent or inconsistent with our intentions (intention is the other half of this equation). Have you ever started a new job and felt that strange sense of ‘wrongness’ when asked to participate in a standard organizational rite? I think this sense indicates a sojourn into an attractor basin (if not the whole phase space) that is inimical to some core tacit value. Of course it is important to remember that values are not absolute and are, in fact, learned and ‘picked up’ in the contexts we inhabit. So, that’s why after a few weeks in the new job it is hard to remember you even felt weird. Let alone why.

So, the analysis of the relevant 'phase spaces' of an organization or a culture can help surface into collective awareness the patterns that are driving our behavior. What is important, in my view, about Trust is that it is one of our very basic background, tacit, and ubiquitous contexts - it is one of the 'mother spaces' that we inhabit. Again, my imagery sees us living in a multidimensional world of nested contexts - each with its own flavor and gradient.

In terms of Follett and participatory democracy I think it is interesting to note that the boundary crossing that seems to be necessary for participatory democracy in the large sense is made difficult by the strength of the attractors of individual experiences. Which is interesting in light of the wide spread recognition of the reduction in 'meta-narratives' or narratives that create meaningful practices (attractors) across wide populations.

So, one of the questions that I have is: do we need to create new meta-narratives (or are they being created as we sit?)? Is a meta-narrative the post-hoc, or after the fact conception of the shape of a lot of years of individual moiling around in states of relative chaos, incoherence, and separation? Is our job now in the creating of narratives? Or watching and becoming aware of their collective creation and then speaking them? Or both?

posted by Chris Francovich  # 6:46 PM