Friday, January 1, 2010

Creating A New Context--The Way of OD

How we behave moment by moment is determined in large part by the context in which we perceive events around us. In a comedy club I expect to be entertained and am prepared to laugh. At a drugstore counter as I pick up a medication, I remember being treated officiously last time, and I protect myself from being treated as the clerk's problem again.

At the comedy club almost anything the entertainer says is funny, or at least interesting, as long as it is consistent with the behavior of a comedian. Some jokes are funnier than others, but I do expect jokes, not tragic news. At the drug counter the new kid serving as clerk mumbles his questions and gets my name wrong. Then I notice his plastic bracelet and ask what cause he's supporting. It's some kind of tragic disease that needs more research funding; my behavior softens and I help him understand my name and find my order. We part wishing each other a great day. The context shifted.

In a staff meeting I expect to talk about work issues and to state relevant views about decisions we need to make. In one particular group I expect some off-topic comments from certain staff members, and weak, unfocused leadership from the manager running the meeting. I'm resigned to frustration for an hour and a half, but look for opportunities to interject sanity--or at least a smart aleck remark to break the tension.

All interaction, in this sense, has both content and context. We focus on content but are implicitly aware of context for guiding our understanding and response choices. These are the figure-ground combinations described so well by Gestalt psychology: we assign meaning to experiences in terms of the interplay between the figure and the ground--in my terms, between content and context. Changing either one changes the meaning of the whole.

We tend in most circumstances to accept context as it is--even to be unconscious of it, and engage in content-focused exchanges. The meeting is the way it is; my focus is on what people talk about, and my choices are about what I say. One way of understanding Organization Development practice is to view our work as paying attention to the context in which people say and do things; to notice the way that context supports or limits their awareness and choice; and to intervene at the level of context as much as content.

In the role of consultant or facilitator in a staff meeting I can say something about the topic we're discussing--content--and I can also say or do something about how we're talking and interacting--context (or as some refer to this, process).

In a rambling conversation at a meeting, I might say, "Ah... I just want to check; what agenda topic are we on?" and the context pops out of tacit background and into explicit focus in everyone's awareness. Group members come out of trance. It's like watching an overly dramatic play and turning to the next person saying, "what do you think this stage setting is doing to the action of the characters?"

This is always experienced as a break in the flow in some way. Pulses quicken; color returns to faces. Tension shifts, up or down--either experiencing defensiveness and conflict, or relief from frustration and powerlessness. It's a high-risk, high-power move. In that moment our professional behavior is counter-cultural--outside the norm. Done well, it releases group members' creative energy for constructive change. Done slightly wrong--in timing, tone, or wording, it can evoke aggressive coordinated group reaction in protection of the group and its formal leader from this hostile outsider.

We do this all the time in our work, in small or large interventions. Whether we are doing a role-play in a training session, or recording the agenda on a flip-chart or guiding the redesign of work structures, we're changing the context.

And we--anyone--can do this every day in any interaction. We are always each other's context as we talk, work, play, or are silent together. We are actors on the stage and also stage designers for ourselves and each other. As co-authors of our lives we can re-write the plot flow as we go along, creating the quality of our dramas, our tragedies, and our comedies.

The OD practitioner's job is to take these creative risks appropriately and effectively, moment by moment, in each intervention, training session and client engagement. It can't be done well as a technique or a manipulation, because it won't work, or it will backfire. When we consistently do it well, authentically, we truly earn our high fee, and we get the satisfaction of catalyzing constructive change and making a difference.

Do you have a recent experience with changing the context in an interaction? I hope you'll post a comment about it.

And enter your email on the right, to receive notification of new entries as they are posted.

4 comments:

Unknown said...

From your experience, what would make groups of OD practitioners from different public agencies band together as peers to level up capabilities, shape their role in their respective orgs and make tangible the impact of OD on Org Performance besides providing sharing platforms (communities of practice, on-line portal, events etc), writing up practice research pieces, and case studies?

Saul Eisen, Ph.D. said...

Great question from Garvin. First of all, the proposed outcome is desirable:

"...groups of OD practitioners from different public agencies band together as peers to level up capabilities, shape their role in their respective orgs and make tangible the impact of OD on Org Performance"

Second, several possible initiatives are identified, to move toward that goal:

"...providing sharing platforms (communities of practice, on-line portal, events etc), writing up practice research pieces, and case studies."

But Garvin highlights the dilemma of social change activists--a desirable goal and attempted initiatives for moving toward it are sometimes not enough. Some kind of invisible social inertia seems to be at work. How does one discover the nature of that inertia, and do something about that?

My post about changing the context would suggest ways of moving past this dilemma. Context is generally invisible, because human beings tend to focus on content instead. Yet the meaning of content is provided by the implicit context in which it is experienced. So we need to shift the focus of our attention from content to context: What are the conditions, assumptions, expectations, social structures, communication media, and exemplary behavior patterns within which OD Practitioners are currently operating? And how are these lending stability to current behaviors, and limiting the effectiveness of new initiatives for collaboration?

This shift requires inquiry and reflection: Conversations about the question with OD practitioners to discover how they are currently experiencing and giving meaning to their work and their collaborations with other practitioners. And shared reflection with them about the significance and implications of current ways of experiencing and working.

This inquiry process, itself, can create a new context for shared awareness of current and potential patterns.

And then one can notice instances of positive deviance from current patterns--new thoughts, interactions, successes resulting from the new "banding together"--and one can highlight and celebrate those accomplishments, thus developing a new context for them.

Maybe one can even post some blog items about them!
; )

christy lee-engel said...

Hello dear Saul,

I am learning a lot from reading your blog posts! Being very curious about OD but not being an actual practitioner, it is very interesting to read theory and examples of how it is applied.

In naturopathic medicine we like to pay a lot of attention to those factors that Public Health calls "the determinants of health" - those conditions that allow life to thrive (or not). The importance of addressing in whatever ways we can those non-medicinal, non-prescription aspects of caring for health and well-being that have a wide effect rather than affecting only one person/patient. Clean air and water, safe neighborhoods, access to affordable housing and healthy food and unspoiled wilderness etc etc. Might these also be part of or related to the contexts you write about here?

love to you,
Christy (on a cloudy evening in Seattle)

Saul Eisen, Ph.D. said...

Hi Christy,

I'm delighted to see your post here. The shift from content to context that I'm writing about does apply as you suggest, to public health perspectives. Instead of waiting for a symptom to show up, and then treating the individual who has it, we can consider the contextual patterns of public nutrition (as in school lunches), air quality, and natural environments. These factors can either cause illness or maintain health, although individuals are not particularly aware of their effects at the time.

If we pay attention to our physical contexts, and to our social or community contexts, we can increase the well-being of whole populations. Instead of treating symptoms, we can be intentional about creating the conditions for widespread health.

The struggle is to shift our habitual attention from the immediate pressures, and learn to consider the subtle causality of public health. If we learn to respond to the future, instead of reacting to the present/past, we can gain power over unexpected consequences. We can create the desirable human experience of health and well-being. And, most effectively, we can do it together!