Lec 3: OD + Complexity theories link to SKAT:
"Nothing is but becomes. Different processes are present at the same time."
A Coggle Diagram about Weick (We wrote that freezing might be needed to understand the current meaning and be able to redirect sense instead of creating sense, • FREEZE (make disruption visible, to show what is occurring in the ways things are currently adapting)
• REBALANCE (reinterpret and unfold – remove blockages in the adaptive processes)
• REDIRECT (resume emergent change – double loop learning. In order to to enable further emergent changes to occur), narrative and identification are in connection with each other: if they succeed in creating a positive narrative, employees might be able to identify better with the org., Emergent change might not be possible at SKAT- at least not in terms of the structural changes (e.g. strukturreformen was not emergent change ), We have used SM framework to discuss how it might have been beneficial for mgmt to involve the employees, We have discussed the 4 drivers for change; if these are not activated, changes will most likely fail. HOWEVER, Weick says: The 4 conditions are more often activated with emergent change than planned. People need to act before they know what they mean, which includes observation and dialogue. So is it possible to do this at SKAT???, presentaition: politicians should have equipped top mgmt and top shoudlve equipped the middle mgmt to allow for sensemaking to happen in the organization, to have a tool to cope with the changes. (more understanding and narratives couldve changed), From politicians perspectives looks as if SKAT is experiencing inertia. --> wrong perception of change, What would Weick say to our paper? Probably that for us to investigate the sensemaking, we should conduct the study on a micro level, since:
Macro level of analysis looks like routine, dotted with occasional episodes of revolutionary change. BUT a micro level analysis suggest ongoing adaption and adjustment.
, Different narratives at play at the same time –SKAT. Difficult for your narrative to come into play when 200 other narratives are also present. and
micro level analysis suggest ongoing adaption and adjustment.
Critique of our paper - we have looked at the macro level. have we then captured the dynamics? not according to weick
), Chia (Process over Outcome: Chia would say at SKAT the focus at least from top mgmt and politicians was on the outcome, overlooking the process of change, There will be consequences but we don’t know when the consequences will be at SKAT, SKAT should not try to manage change. It emerges on its own, it is unpredictable, creative and surprising. SKAT has intervened too much. They should let change evolve on its own. Only intervene in trying to capture som value from the change process , SKAT not recognizing the connectivity. How everything is connected in a heterogeneous manner. No step models required here, its the connectivity that is important. --> Immanence and the logic og otherness, If we were to make a Chia study, we would maybe look at micro processes - using ethnography -observations and Chia would probably critisize our study bc he is focused on the 'becoming' - and we have conducted a retrospective study --> yoiu miss the dynamic charcter of SC), Stacey (Says system thinking creates unhealthy environment, meaning that we need to be mindful of what control systems create. So at SKAT he would argue that the formal structure thinking was creating an unhealthy environment where ppl were just holding back their worries about the system. , They are all looking at how org become what they become. , (Thus there are things that are not in SKATs control. Should have focused on conversation - interactions. Microprocesses. ), Specificity: just know culture, competencies depends on the organization. We cannot expect to be able to plan what is going to happen. Depends on the context. and Paradoxes: predictability and unpredictability (make a plan and accept that there are going to be stuff they cant predict. EFI they can predict an IT system that will be at play but cant predict how it will actually play out) enabling and constraining (share their feelings on EFI system - but this also inhibits constructive conversations?), individual/group (the individual plans affect the group's plans and the other way around as well)), OD (You need to take into consideration more microprocesses, Critque of paper: We could have incorporated aspects of OD more in our paper such as democratic values, --> lewin group dynamics and the forces at fields considering the environment. , at SKAT they could take into consideration how to help/train employees to deal with their own problems. , Appreciative Inquiry: SKAT has not looked enough at what they are good at and work and develop a vision of a future based on that and Dialogic OD: SKAT should have focused more on bringing different stakeholders and listen to their view. They should have been facilitators instead of just representing the facts.
SKAT should have been prepared to listen!), Shaw (He would argue mgmt needs feedback sessions with employees at SKAT, to understand the shadow systems (which create local network interactions) that emerge through organizing processes, Would even argue that management should engage in the shadow systems - or hire consultants to engage in the shadow systems, Different systems at play: Eg. Shadow system / Legitimate formal system and Difference from Stacey and Chia: she is suggesting something - maybe more pragmatic. Also focuses on the OD consultant. ) and Process thinkers (1) Acknowledges complexity of change 2), highlight political nature of change, 3) recognize past, present & future rather than a static time-bounded event. and All of them: Local patterns of interactions > Self-organization > New larger pattern emerges > process of becoming)