Interpersonal competence in action research (Dls line12)

INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH

AN ACTION SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE

DR TIM ROGERS


OUTLINE OF TODAY’S SEMINAR

▸ A description of action science (aka ‘the theory of action’)

▸ A description of some of the action science tools used to conduct action research

▸ An exploration of these tools using an issue of your choosing


BUT LET’S BEGIN WITH…

…recalling a ‘case’ in your own workplace.

‣ Is a problem that is important organisationally

‣ It has not been readily solvable

‣ You are invested in solving it

‣ It has an interpersonal component (i.e. you are needing to co-operate with, or co-ordinate with, or maybe cajole etc others to resolve the issue)


WHY IS INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE THE LYNCHPIN?

▸ Action research should be about getting a fuller, more complete, mental model of the organisational system

▸ To do that we need to understand the organisation’s theory-in-use (the logic behind its practices)

▸ To do that we need to know the individuals’ theories-in-use (including our own as action researchers/consultants)


* Rogers, T. (2000, December 3-6). Consultants as therapists? Reflections on double-loop issues and consultant interventions. Paper presented at ANZAM: The leap ahead, managing for the new millennium, Sydney, Australia.

KEVIN’S STORY

▸ Key line: “So why was Kevin advising others to follow advice that was likely to corrupt information, a manager's most precious commodity?”

BILL & BEN CONSULTANTS

KEVIN SENIOR MANAGER

BENITO SECTION HEAD

EDWARD SECTION HEAD

SUSAN SECTION HEAD


WHAT IS ACTION SCIENCE?

▸ A meta-theory of human action: human action is (often) goal driven and involves tacit theories for achieving these aims

▸ The ‘theory of action’ claims that there are two theories at work: espoused theories and theories-in-use

▸ Under conditions of potential psychological threat or embarrassment anti-learning theories-in-use tend to predominate, while our espoused theories often describe the opposite goals and practices


THEORIES OF ACTION▸ 1) In situation X (conditions), 2) do Z (strategy), 3) achieve Y (goal)

▸ Under conditions of threat or embarrassment, Model 1 theory-in-use (‘TIU’) predominates: unilaterally control, win and not lose, reduce negative affect

▸ Spawns strategies:

▸ advocate views in order to be in control and win

▸ evaluate and attribute in ways that do not encourage questioning and testing of one’s views and feelings

▸ unilaterally save face - both your own and others

▸ Is self-sealing - we don’t see our use of anti-learning strategies but often see/feel others use of these strategies


HIGH LEVEL ‘MAP’ OF PERSONAL AND ORGANISATIONAL TIU

GOVERNING CONDITIONS

CHANGES IN ORG FOCUS OR

STRUCTURE; CHANGES IN

NORMS, ASSUMPTIONS

AND EXPECTATIONS

INTERACT WITH MODEL 1 THEORIES-IN-

USE

GROUP CONSEQUENCES: POLARISATION; SCAPEGOATING; LOWERED TRUST

ORGANISATIONAL CONSEQUENCES: NO DOUBLE-LOOP

LEARNING; PASSIVITY;

‘SCLEROSIS’

INDIVIDUAL CONSEQUENCES: CONFIRMATION BIAS; LACK OF

SELF-AWARENESS;

PROBLEMS SEEN AS TOO DIFFICULT

EASY PROBLEMS

PROBLEMS THAT

CONTAIN THREAT


A ‘MAP’ OF THE KEVIN AND THE SECTION HEADS CASEKEVIN’S GOALS

RESOLVE BUDGET CONSTRAINTS

UNDERSTAND ROLES/PURPOSE

MAKE RATIONAL DECISIONS PROTECT OTHERS

SH GOALS UNDERSTAND KEVIN’S

PURPOSE ENSURE RATIONAL DECISIONS

PROTECT SELVES

ACTION STRATEGY SEEK INFORMATION, BUT

DO NOT SHARE HIDE FEELINGS (‘EASING-IN’)

ACTION STRATEGY SEEK INFORMATION, BUT

DO NOT SHARE HIDE FEELINGS (‘EASING-IN’)

CONSEQUENCES LOW LEARNING

LOW TRUST FRUSTRATION

ATTRIBUTIONS OF DEFENSIVENESS

CONSEQUENCES LOW LEARNING

LOW TRUST INCREASING FEAR ATTRIBUTIONS OF DEFENSIVENESS

SECTION HEADS SENSE HIDDEN AGENDAKEVIN SENSES GAME

PLAYING


IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE▸ ‘Plan’ ‘Act’ ‘Observe’ ‘Reflect’ often relates to espoused

theories

▸ So is not neutral, but theory laden

▸ Theories need to be tested to see if they are reasonable

▸ But, our own testing is itself theory laden


ACTION SCIENCE RESEARCH CYCLE

DESCRIPTION DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE DATA

ESPOUSED THEORIES

ANALYSIS INFERENTIAL STEPS

THEORY-IN-USE

DISCERNING PATTERNS RULES UNDERLYING ACTION

PATTERNS

TESTING EXISTENCE OF PATTERNS EFFECTS OF PATTERNS


WHAT THIS GIVES US

▸ Note that what we are doing here is applying a causal explanatory theory to redescribe perceived social phenomena

▸ We are beginning to link individual theories-in-use with the organisational climate for learning…

▸ …so structure and agency

▸ How to break free?


THE ROLE OF INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE

▸ Model 2 theory-in-use: an alternative to Model 1

▸ ‘Giving reason’. Tacit rules make sense locally, but not globally

▸ Getting at the cognitive and emotional footprint

▸ Because without this we cannot get to valid data

▸ Without valid data we cannot intervene at the right level


MODEL 2 TIU

▸ The values here are: valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment to the choices made

▸ Spawns strategies:

▸ advocate views and invite enquiry

▸ illustrate evaluations and attributions in ways that encourage questioning and testing of one’s views and feelings

▸ minimise face-saving - both your own and others

▸ Invites significant understanding of one’s own impact and the systematic effects of communication on valid information


LEVELS OF THEORIES, KINDS OF PROBLEMS

▸ Using Model 2 helps us to disentangle…

▸ Espoused theories and theories-in-use, exposing disjunctures - ‘parapraxis’ of everyday actions

▸ Single-loop and double-loop problems


ACTION RESEARCH TO CONNECT THE INTERPERSONAL AND THE ORGANISATIONAL(ARCIO) DESCRIPTIVE DATA: TWO-COLUMN CASE

Unsaid thoughts & feelings Actually saidHere goes. I’ve thought a lot about this and need to address it - I’ll explain my rationale in a transparent [sic], this job is not always pleasant, but it’s my job to deal with it

Alison: I know that you have been attending the NGO meetings for a long time… What’s happened is with the MLT coming over from organisation X and with the NGO employing their own MLT workers they now meet together to discuss clients. They have the abilities and cultural expertise to provide services for their clients.


ARCIO - DESCRIPTIVE DATA: TWO-COLUMN CASE PAGE 2

Unsaid thoughts & feelings Actually saidHere goes. I’ve thought a lot about this and need to address it - I’ll explain my rationale in a transparent [sic], this job is not always pleasant, but it’s my job to deal with it

Alison: You have maintained your offers of professional consultancy with them, but the MLT are able to make decisions /undertake case management on their own. So what I’m trying to say then, is that rather than attending these joint meetings, your time may be better utilised elsewhere. I’m also looking at this from a workload perspective as you are understandably overwhelmed with your work, and asking how to reduce your workload.


ARCIO - DESCRIPTIVE DATA: TWO-COLUMN CASE PAGE 3

Unsaid thoughts & feelings Actually saidHere she goes again, not wanting to take direction, undermining my position as the Manager, wanting to do her own thing. Can’t she understand she can’t just do whatever she wants to? I’ve given her a rationale, I don’t know of anyone who takes it upon themselves to supervise someone else without it being formalised.

Ms X: ( appearing panicked and shocked) How can you decide that! Has there been any consultation? I’ve not heard about this, you can’t make these decisions.


ARCIO - ANALYSIS: LADDER OF INFERENCE

Attribution/evaluation

What was said/done

What it means

“How can you decide that! Has there been any consultation? I’ve not heard about this, you can’t make these decisions.”

Ms X is resistant. Ms X misunderstands who makes what decisions

Ms X has a personality disorder


ARCIO - ANALYSIS: PATTERNS 1: COMPETING INTERPRETATIONSALISON BELIEVES AND SAYS MS X HEARS AND BELIEVES

ATTRIBUTIONS AND EVALUATIONS MS X IS TRYING TO CONTROL OTHERS AND

SHOULDN’T BE

ATTRIBUTIONS AND EVALUATIONS ALISON WANTS TO CONTROL ME AND

SHOULDN’T BE

PRESCRIPTION FOR ACTION MS X SHOULD STOP SUPERVISING

DESIGN FOR DIALOGUE MLT DO NOT NEED YOUR HELP

ACTUALLY SAID BY ALISON “THE MLT CAN MAKE DECISIONS ON THEIR

OWN”

EVERYDAY MEANING MLT DO NOT NEED MY HELP

INTERPRETATION ALISON HAS UNILATERALLY EVALUATED MY WORK SITUATION AND DETERMINED WHAT I

SHOULD DO

Duelling Inferences


ARCIO - ANALYSIS: PATTERNS 2: COMPETING LOGICS


ARCIO - ANALYSIS: PATTERNS 3: ‘LAY’ INTERPRETATION VS THEORY


ORGANISATIONAL ISSUE: LIMITS TO AUTONOMY

▸ A problem right across the field of multidisciplinary teams (and flattened hierarchies everywhere)

▸ Espoused vs in-use theories, and the lessons team members take home

▸ The role of the ‘good dialectic’


APPLYING THIS TO OUR OWN CASES

▸ The purpose:

▸ To break apart the elements of the situation of concern

▸ To break down the automaticity of our responses

▸ To increase our agency, or self-determination, and that of others


PLEASE SEE TWO COLUMN CASE HANDOUT

Rogers, T. (2014). Two-column technique. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research (Vol. 2, pp. 796–797). London: Sage.


LADDER OF INFERENCE

▸ Take a key assumption (expressed as an evaluation or attribution) from the left-hand column, then…

Attribution/evaluation

What was said/done

What it means

Li-Na missed several important slides

Li-Na lost her place and did not recover

“Li-Na is a really lousy presenter”

?

Leadership & Management

Interpersonal competence in action research (Dls line12)