Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Chapter 15FUTURE SEARCH CONVERSATIONKAREN E. NORUMGo
Similar to Chapter 15FUTURE SEARCH CONVERSATIONKAREN E. NORUMGo (20)
More from EstelaJeffery653
More from EstelaJeffery653 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Chapter 15FUTURE SEARCH CONVERSATIONKAREN E. NORUMGo
- 1. Chapter 15 FUTURE SEARCH CONVERSATION KAREN E. NORUM Gonzaga University And so it was that the people devised among themselves a way of asking each other questions whenever a decision was to be made on a New Place or a New Way. We sought to perceive the flow of energy through each new possibility and how much was enough and how much was too much. - Underwood, 1991, p. 38 1. INTRODUCTION We can have any future we want. We just have to identify it and design it-purposefully. "Future Search," as popularized by Marvin Weisbord, provides a framework for creating a system's future. The purpose of a Future Search conference is for the system to identify and aim for an ideal future. Two primary goals are to a) help large, diverse groups discover common values, purposes, and projects and b) enable people to create together a
- 2. desired future that can be implemented immediately (Weisbord & Janoff, 2001). No prior training or expertise is needed to participate meaningfully in a Future Search. In fact, there is evidence that when people "begin working on real tasks relevant to a shared purpose," the skills needed to participate in the Future Search process "appear naturally and effortlessly" (Emery «& Purser, 1996, p. 16). The process has been used to address a variety of issues (health care, education, public transportation, water quality), in a variety of settings (schools, hospitals, publishers, churches, government, non- profit organizations), in a variety of locations (North and South America, Australia, Africa, Europe, South Asia). Dialogue as a Means of Collective Communication, Edited by Banathy and Jenlink Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York 2005 3 2 3 324 Karen E. Norum 2. BACK TO THE FUTURE As developed by Weisbord, Future Search is an integration of several approaches to cooperative planning. It borrows from the "leadcrless group" principles developed by Wilford Bion and Eric Trist during WW II, which are
- 3. now principles for self-managing teams (Weisbord, 1992b). It takes the idea of a global context setting (looking at the global context before the local) from the Search Conference model developed by Fred Emery and Eric I rist (Weisbord, 1992b). The democratic (vs. autocratic) leadership style was adapted from the work of Ronald Lippett and Kurt Lewin (Weisbord, 1992b), From Ronald Lippett and Eva Schindler-Rainman, Weisbord used images of potential explored by whole communities (Weisbord, 1992b). Because Weisbord was most heavily influenced by the Lippett and Schindlcr- Rainman's large-scale community futures conferences and Emery and Trist's Search Conference, he named his innovation "Future Search" (Weisbord & Janoff, 2000). The spin Weisbord provided was boxing all these elements together in one room: A Future Search Conference brings "into one room people who each have pieces of a complex puzzle" (Weisbord, lS)92a, p, 10), Making the benefits of systems thinking and creating space and place for people to work under an umbrella of shared values and goals are two primary goals of a Future Search Conference (Weisbord & Janoff, 2000). Typically, a Future Search involves 60-70 people. This allows for many perspectives while still keeping the group small enough that the full group can
- 4. be in conversation throughout the process (Weisbord & Janoff, 2001). It lasts for two and one-half days, which allows for building trust and committing to actions (Weisbord & Janoff, 2001), The process is based on an assumption that "when groups share a common purpose or ideals about a more desirable future, they can learn to work together, respect each other, and cooperate toward the achievement of shared goals" (Emery & Purser, 1996, p. 16), 1 he task is always to identify the future of the system by considering where the system has been, where it is now and present trends that affect the system, identifying "Prouds" and "Sorries", determining the ideal future, and .staking out the widest common ground possible for action planning (Weisbord & Janoff, 2001). 3. COREVALUES, ASSUMPTIONS AND CONDITIONS FOR FUTURE SEARCH CONFERENCES Embedded in the Future Search model is certain core values, assumptions about learning, and conditions for success. Each of these will be described below. Future Search Conversation 325 3.1. Core values
- 5. Seven core values are at the foundation of the Future Search model. The first is epistemological: The real world is knowable to ordinary people; their knowledge can be collectively and meaningfully organized (Weisbord, 1992a). It would follow then that people can create tlieir own future (Weisbord, 1992a), The third core value assumes that people look for opportunities to engage their head, hearts and hands. They want to be part of organizational decision-making and in fact, are extraordinary sources of information about what is happening in the organization (Weisbord, 1992a). The fourth core value follows-up on this idea: Everyone is an equal; planning should not be left to the elite of the organization (Weisbord, 1992a). Given the chance, people are more likely to cooperate rather than fight is the fifth core value (Weisbord, 1992a), The sixth core value reminds us that the process should empower people to feel more knowledgeable and certain about the future (Weisbord, 19S>2a). The last core value is about diversity: divergent views and opinions are to be welcomed, respected, and valued (Weisbord, 1992a). These core values send the message that the wisdom of ordinary people is not expendable (Norum, 1997); rather, it is essential to creating exciting organizational futures. These core values also provide
- 6. clues regarding the assumptions about learning from which Weisbord operates. 3.2 Assumptions Seven assumptions about how we leam are foundational to the Future Search Model (Weisbord & Janoff, 2000), Assumption 1: Everyone has a unique learning style. To honor this belief, a variety of methods are used during a Future Search Conference. Assumption 2: People learn at different rates. In the Future Search model, this means that some people may be confused or lost in the early stages if this is a very different style and model of learning for them. Thus, patience with one another is essential. Assumption 3: Everyone learns different things from a common experience. We can all be in the same meeting and each come away with a different interpretation of what happened. The sharing of perceptions is part of the Future Search process along with accepting different interpretations and viewpoints as valid. Assumption 4: We leam best from our own experiences and need to test new ideas and viewpoints against our own knowledge. The goal is to avoid falling into the trap that there is "one best way" and remain
- 7. open to several options that will probably work. 326 Karen E. Norum Assumption 5: You will leam more in a single Future Search Conference than you will be able to apply. To avoid being overwhelmed, local action within a global context helps to focus what leaming can be applied and how it is relevant. Assumption 6: Everyone has the ability to teach others. Participation and drawing on each other's expertise is one way to help and teach others. This type of interaction is built into the process. Assumption 7: We all benefit from trial and error if given the support and opportunity for success. The Future Search Conference provides a low-risk setting in which to try out new ideas. These assumptions about how we leam along with the core values reveal a belief that Weisbord shares with many others: We do not need to rely on experts to design our social systems (Banathy, 1996; Carr, 1997; Owen, 1997; Weisbord, 1992a; Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996; Whitney, 2001). "Each person is bom with sage-like wisdom waiting to be awakened"
- 8. (Daft & Lengel, 1998, p. 72). Organizations are coming to realize that what its employees know "is at the heart of how an organization functions" (Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p. x). In fact, Davenport and Prusak suggest that many organizations are misdirected in seeking the expertise of consultants: "much of the knowledge they [need] already [exists] within their organizations" (1998, p. xii). The problem may be in accessing this knowledge. A Future Search Conference provides a way to access the knowledge already existing about the organization's future. Meeting certain conditions for success will ensure the knowledge that exists is accessed. 3.3 Conditions From several years of experience creating Future Search Conferences, Weisbord and Janoff (2000) believe there are eight conditions for success. Three of these are the most critical. All will be described below. Condition J: Get the "whole system" in the room. The "whole system" is the "broadest temporary planning community feasible" (Emery & Weisbord, 1992, p. 66). A broad cross-section of stakeholders is needed for diverse perspectives. A variety of perspectives will allow for each snapshot view to contribute towards creating a new picture of the whole (Senge,
- 9. 1990; Weisbord & Janoff, 2000). This also allows for new relationships to develop as well as the cross-pollination of visions and imaginations (Whyte, 1994). Weisbord and Janoff admit it may not be feasible to literally get the "whole system" in the room but insist on a diagonal slice of the system. They suggest a diagonal slice of 60-70 stakeholders provides for ample diversity as well as ensures face-to-faee dialogue and a balanee of small group and whole system time. Condition 2: The "Whole Elephant" as context for local action. This condition refers to the Sufi story of the six blind men describing an elephant. Future Search Conversation 327 In order to pool individual experience to create a shared reality, the task of the group is considered in the context of society as a whole. Trends within and between the system and trends outside of the system are explored. Condition 3: Explore current reality and common futures. The Future Search Conference is not meant to be a problem-solving or conflict- management experience. Thus, differences are acknowledged,
- 10. but are not worked through during the conference. They are put on hold. Instead, the focus is on imagining and inventing new ideal futures. The widest common ground everyone can stand upon is identified and used for aetion planning purposes. Condition 4: Work in self-managed and small groups. Everyone is responsible for sharing and interpreting information. Everyone participates in action planning. This reduces dependency, hierarchy, confiict, and task- avoidance. It increases the chances of people experiencing discovery, leaming, and cooperation. Small groups determine how to delegate the tasks and are encouraged to rotate the roles group members play (discussion leader, recorder, reporter, time keeper, data manager). Condition 5: Attend the whole meeting. People need to be there to acL A fully shared experience is the goal. This fully shared experience ereates a common future and an understanding of how that common future was identified. Condition 6: Meet under healthy conditions. People will be spending up to three days together; daylight and good food are condueive to a produetive meeting.
- 11. Condition 7: Work across three days. Weisbord and Janoff contend that a 2 1/2 day process is critical to allow for "soak time" (2000, p. 55). The evening session commonly ends when people are working on important tasks to keep the leaming alive ovemight, while the creative process continues. The 2 1/2 day format also ensures that action planning will not come at a time when people are overloaded and too tired for it. Condition 8: Take public responsibility for follow -up. At a Future Seareh Conference, people will be asked to publicly share what they will do next The role each person will play when they go back to "work" is declared. Having publie accountability increases the odds that each person will follow through on implementing the action plan. Weisbord suggests that of these seven, three are "minimum eritieai specifications" (Emery & Weisbord, 1992 p. 66). These are getting the whole system in the room (Condition 1), exploring the local context within the global (Condition 2), and working in small self-managed groups (Condition 4). Weisbord asserts these three particular conditions interact to allow for a wide group of stakeholders working interdependently in a wide field of inquiry (Emery & Weisbord, 1992). This inereases the likelihood of the
- 12. conference 328 Karen E. Norum going "beyond participation to the farther reaches of common ground, creativity, and committed action" (Emery & Weisbord, 1992, p. 66). 4. THE FUTURE SEARCH PROCESS Five key tasks make up the structure of a Future Search Conference, These tasks are accomplished by people working in small mixed groups-groups that reflect the diversity of the stakeholders. Their first task is to review tiie past to establish personal histories, identify key world events, and share milestones in the history of the organization. This past becomes prelude to the future (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999) as each group develops and shares a picture of where the organization has been and how it got to the present moment. The second task is to focus on the present by creating a mind map of trends that are currently affecting the organization. The trends are global and once the map has been created, each person identifies the trends they think are most critical to creating a new future. The entire group becomes engaged in
- 13. producing a collective reality. The map is then reinterpreted by common rather than mixed stakeholder groups to allow peers to hear what each other is thinking. Each stakeholder group then reports how they believe these trends are affecting the system now. A common surprise is through this exercise, different stakeholders discover they share concerns, "worry about the same issues and want to live in the same kind of world" (Weisbord & Janoff, 20CX)). The third task is to focus on "prouds" and "sorries": each stakeholder group is asked to share what they are doing presently that they feel proud of or sorry about, particularly in relation to creating the new ideal future. 1 he purpose of this task is for people to take responsibility; not to do anything to make amends, etc. Weisbord and Janoff believe "our perceptions of our own behavior, good news and bad, need to be public for people to get beyond blaming and complaining" (2000, p. 96). While the mind-map is a descriptive exercise about the present, "Prouds and Sorries" is affective, getting at what the group feels about what they are doing (Weisbord & Janoff, 2000). Groups are mixed again for the fourth task: creating a desired future. As people discover what they are ready, willing, and able to do, they start moving
- 14. themselves toward their new ideal future. Groups imagine they are five, ten, or twenty years in the future and create a concrete image of the new organization. They also identify major barriers they had to overcome to get to this new future. The scenarios are presented to the large group and as they arc presented, people make note of themes they hear that were present in their group's scenario as well as ideas, projects, innovations they like. Three lists are created: Common Future (what everyone agrees they want in the future organization). Potential Projects (proposals for how to get what everyone has agreed they want) and Not Agreed (differences and conflicts that still exist). Similar themes are grouped and a picture of a shared ideal future emerges. Future Search Conversation 329 Now it is time to act on creating the identified new desired future. In this fifth and last task, action planning is based on only what has been identified as the common ground. People take responsibility for what they intend to do to make the desired future a reality-next steps are decided upon, the work is divided up, goals are set, who else needs to be involved is determined. These commitments and timetables are made public so everyone is on
- 15. the same page and knows what needs to happen when tiiey return to die organization. "We have created this world togetJier and we now face it together, listening to each other, building on each other's perceptions" (Weisbord & Janoff, 2000 p. 93). Confusion, chaos, and contradictions are embedded in the Future Search process. Differences and disagreement are acknowledged as paradox but not reconciled. In order to stake out the widest common ground, conversation becomes strategy: if the knowledge sought already exists in the system, people are probably already engaged in a "collective search for meaning about the direction of the [system]" (Thomas & Roberts, 1999, p. 519). 5. STAKING OUT THE WIDEST COMMON GROUND Conversation is a powerful low-tech way to change entire systems (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996b). In the Future Search process, it is the pathway to discovering common ground. One of the key features of the Future Search model is that differences are acknowledged, but not dealt with at that point in time. Leaming Assumptions Three and Four (described earlier) are central to this concept. Leaming
- 16. Assumption Three encourages the sharing of perceptions and accepting different interpretations and viewpoints as valid. Leaming Assumption Four reminds us to challenge our assumptions. We all cany mental models, images of how we believe the world works, around with us (Senge, 1990). These mental models are deeply embedded in our memory banks (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998). They are reflected in our beliefs and ultimately, the actions taken based on those beliefs. Thus, challenging our mental models is critical to discovering common ground. Daft and Lengel (1998) state "mind potential is released when people open to new information and multiple perspectives" (p. 69). Seeing the limitations in our own perceptions (Daft & Lengel, 1998; Senge, 1990) allows us to "loosen our grip on our certainties" (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998, p. 68) and hold differences in paradox. When we engage in the kind of conversation that allows us to challenge assumptions and recognize differences but not focus on them, different kinds of questions are asked. The questions asked illustrate the group is involved in mutual inquiry or exploration. The questions reflect an open- minded curiosity. 330 Karen E. Norum
- 17. a wide-eyed innocence rather than cynicism or a desire to impose an agenda. The questions are directed towards making me clear about what the other person is saying-questions that indicate a softening and opening up of the mind (Bohm, 1990). This is dialogic conversation, directed toward discovery and new understandings (Bohm, 1990; Burbules, 1993, Senge, 1990). The radical approach to acknowledging conflicts but not working through them then and there means that people learn to hold their position instead of being held by their position (Senge, 1990). Conflict is put on hold while common ground takes center stage (Weisbord & Janoff, 2000). Fears are allayed as "commonalities take precedence and human diversity is appreciated" (Emery & Purser, p. 17). This creates space for each person to talk (Bohm, 1990; Burbules, 1993). In the process of sharing perspectives and having others respond, people learn about their own perspective by re- evaluating its viability, thus coming to understand it more fully (Dixon, 19%). "A dialogue not only gives voice to the other, but is an exchange based on the presumption that each participant has something meaningful to give" (Oliner & Oliner, 1995, p. 116). Wisdom emerges from this way of listening.
- 18. Wisdom born of paying attention and responding to changes in our surroundings: Usually we think of wisdom in terms of lofly abstractions, not survival skills ... and yet, the central survival skill is surely the capacity to pay attention and respond to changing circumstances, to learn and adapt, to fit into new environments. (Bateson, 1990, p. 231) Common ground is the product of listening deeply to one another. We listen deeply and actively when we invite others to talk consistently and frequently; listen naively, without intention to preach; give feedback; and ask "dumb" questions to understand the thinking behind the assumption (Oliner & Oliner, 1995). We are all capable of such conversation, but may need to develop skills as "strategic conversationalists" (Thomas & Roberts, 1999). Thomas and Roberts (1999) suggest that engaging people in five key activities will develop their skills as strategic conversationalists. First, they must learn to continuously scan their "world." In the Future Search process, the scan takes place when working through the second task of identifying trends (local and global) that affect the system. The data received from scanning needs to be interpreted to determine how or if it is
- 19. relevant to the organization. Determining relevancy means respecting different views of what is important. This key activity is also reflected in the Future Search process. Strategy involves making choices. Thomas and Roberts suggest that the key activity be a conversational process where options are considered in detail and the thinking behind them explored. Choices must also be made in light of the organization's desired future. This third key activity is embedded throughout the Future Search process and particularly in the "Prouds and Sorries" task. Strategic choices need to be operationalized and planning through open Future Search Conversation 331 conversation is a key activity proposed by Thomas and Roberts. The Future Search process is ultimately an open conversation directed at planning the future of the system. "Intelligently executing" (Thomas & Roberts, 1999, p. 522) the action plan is the last key activity for strategic conversationalists. The Future Search Conference parallels this activity with the Action Planning task. Thomas and Roberts contend that the largest group of people in an organization is "strategically dormant": they can learn to be effective
- 20. strategists but need to be involved in strategic conversations (2000, p. 523). This mirrors Weisbord's belief that all people are capable of creating the future of the organization, if given the opportunity. When a diverse group of stakeholders is assembled in the same room for over two days, multitudinous and divergent perceptions are revealed as reahties are shared with one another. In being quiet long enough to listen to what others deem significant, common ground emerges. Creating action plans only around what has been staked out as the widest common ground typically creates a momentum such that those at the Future Search conference may become "evangelists and warriors" (Daft & Lengel, 1998) for insuring the action plan does not collect dust. It may be that the paradox created by acknowledging but not focusing on differences "unifies a diverse group of complexity of cultures" (Banathy, 19%, p. 220) such that collaboration and fusion is achieved among diverse parts of the system (Daft & Lengel, 1998). 6. FUTURE SEARCH AS DESIGN CONVERSATION As described by Jenlink and Carr (1996), the focus of a design conversation is to create something new. The Future Search model can be considered to be a type of container (Banathy, 1996; Jenlink & Carr, 1996) that
- 21. allows for conversation focused on designing a new future. This container "intentionally creates conversations where we can speak about what has importance and meaning for us," (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998, p. 96) particularly regarding the desired future of the organization. It creates what Apatow (1998) calls the ideal of "friendship": a state of unity such that we become absorbed in what we are doing. The container also allows for risk-taking. A diverse cross- section of stakeholders makes for "many tinkerers focused on figuring out what's possible" (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996a, p. 25). Designing the system's ideal future is the particular focus of the design conversation associated with Future Search. This does not need to be a one- time conversation. Part of the action planning process includes determining when the ideal future may need to be sought once again. In ever-changing environments, the future that made sense today may not make sense 332 Karen E. Norum tomorrow. Using conversation as strategy means it will be used as a means to determine when the organization is off course or needs to change course.
- 22. The Future Search process is well suited for social systems design. Its foundations acknowledge that all systems are embedded in larger systems. The local context is used to explore the global context as it applies to the desired fiiture of the system. The belief that design should not be the realm of the elite of the organization is reflected in Weisbord's "minimum critical specification" of getting the whole system in the room (or at least a diagonal cross-section of it) (Emery & Weisbord, 1992; Weisbord & Janoff, 2000), Further verification of the Future Search model's appropriateness for social systems design is found in the types of organizations that have used the model. Examples of the many and diverse organizations that have engaged in Future Search activities can be found in Weisbord's book, Discovering Common Ground, as well as at the Future Search Network website (http://www,futuresearch.net). The Future Search model devises a way for people to ask questions when decisions are to be made on a New Place or a New Way (Underwood, 19991), The process of working in small self-managed groups over a long period of time creates the ideal of "friendship" (Apatow, 1998) and allows for a flow of energy through each new possibility to be evaluated
- 23. (Underwood, 1991), These new possibilities create a "messy playfulne ss" that "creates relationships that make available,,,new capacities" (Wheatley & Kcllner- Rogers, 1996a, p, 18), Through purposeful conversations, an ideal future emerges; a future that is attainable because it is the progeny of the engagement of diverse stakeholders' heads, hearts and hands. REFERENCES Apatow, R,, 1998, The Spiritual Arl of Dialogue. Inner Traditions International, Rochester, VT. Banathy, B,H,, 1996, Designing Social systems In a Changing World. Plenum Press, New York, Bateson, M , C , ( 1990), Composing a life. NY: Plume, Bohm, D,, 1990, On dialogue. David Bohm Seminars, Ojai, CA, Burbules, N,C,, 1993, Dialogue in Teaching: Theory and Practice. Teaehers College Press, New York, Carr, A,A,, 1997, User-Design in the ereation of human learning systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3): 5-22, Cooperrider, D,L,, and Whitney, D,, 1999, Appreciative Inquiry: A Constructive Approach to Organization Development and Social Change (A Workshop). Corporation for Positive Change, Taos, NM,
- 24. Daft, R,L,, and Lengel, R,H,, 1998, Fusion Leadership. Berrett- Koehler Publishers, Inc,, San Franciseo, Davenport, T,H,, and Prusak, L,, 1998, Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage Wltal They Know. Harvard Business Sehool Press, Boston, MA, Dixon, N.M,, 1996, Perspectives on Dialogue: Making Talk Developmental for Individuals and Organizations. Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC, Future Search Conversation 333 Ellinor, L., and Gerard, G,, 1998/ Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc,, New York, Emery, F,, and Weisbord, M,R,, 1992, Conditions for success: An exchange between Fred Emery and Marvin R, Weisbord, In M,R, Weisbord (ed,), Discovering Common Ground. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Ine,, San Franeisco, CA, pp, 55-70, Emery, M,, and Purser, R,E,, 19%, The Search Conference: A Powerful Method for Planning Organizational Change and Community Action. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Franeisco, Jenlink, P,, and Carr, A, A,, 1996, Conversation as a medium for change in education. Educational Technology, 36 (1): 31-38,
- 25. Norum, K,E,, 1997, Divergent Voices, Divergent Connections: Stories of Expendable Wisdom and the Challenge for Authentic Engagement. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Colorado at Denver, Oliner, P,M,, and Oliner, S,P,, 1995, Toward a Caring Society: Ideas Into Action. Praeger, Westport, CT, Owen, H,, 1997, Open Space Technology: A User's Guide (2nd ed,), Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Ine,, San Francisco, CA, Senge, P,M,, 1990, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday/Curreney, New York, Thomas, A,, and Roberts, C , 1999, Strategy as conversation. In P, Senge, A, Kleiner, C, Roberts, R, Ross, G, Roth, and B, Smith (eds,). The Dance of change. Doubleday/Curreney, New York, pp, 518-523, Underwood, P,, 1991, Who Speaks for Wolf: A Native American Learning Story (2nd ed,), A Tribe of Two Press, San Anselmo, CA, Weisbord, M,R,, 1992a, Applied common sense. In M,R, Weisbord (ed,). Discovering Common Ground. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Franeisco, pp. 3-17, Weisbord, M,R,, 1992b, Parallel paths to community: Equifmality in action. In M,R, Weisbord (ed,). Discovering Common Ground. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Franeiseo, pp, 45-53,
- 26. Weisbord, M,R,, and Janoff, S,, 2000, Future search: An Action Guide to Finding Common Ground in Organizations and Communities (2nd ed,), Berrett- Koehler Publishers, Ine,, San Franciseo, CA, Weisbord, M R , , and Janoff, S,, 2001, Whal is a Future Search? Retrieved from the World Wide Web 11/25/01: http://wv^w,futuresearch,net/fsis,htm, Wheatley, M,J,, and Kellner-Rogers, M,, 1996a,, An Evening Conversation With Margaret J. Wheatley and Myron Kellner-Rogers. Sponsored by the Colorado Issues Network, Denver, CO, Wheatley, M,J,, and Kellner-Rogers, M,, 1996b, A simpler Way. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Franeisco, CA, Whitney, D,, 2001, Postmodern prineiples and practices for large scale organization change and global cooperation. In D,L, Cooperrider, P,F, Sorensen Jr,, T,F, Yaeger, and D, Whitney (eds,/ Appreciative Inquiry: An Emerging Direction for Organization Development. Stipes Publishing, Champaign, IL, pp, 397-412, Whyte, D,, 1994, The Heart Aroused- Poetry and the Preservation of ihe Soul in Corporate America. Currency/Doubleday, New York,
- 27. 978-1-7281-7172-2/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE Krystal L. Williams Department of Educational Leadership, Policy & Technology Studies The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL USA [email protected] Connecting with Computing: Exploring Black/African-American Women’s People-Centered Interests in Computing Sciences Abstract—Promoting inclusivity and increasing the representation of women in the field of Computer Science (CS) has been an ongoing initiative. When it comes to Black/African- American (AA) women, their underrepresentation in CS is even more disproportionate. CS is a field that is ever-evolving, but its ability to be perceived as a field that is inclusive-to-all has been a continuing challenge. One notable reason is that CS comes off as
- 28. a field that lacks altruism by nature. For instance, literature shows that women tend to gravitate away from CS for fields that align more with their interests for helping others. However, CS in nature can create spaces that provide platforms for women, especially women of color, to express their personal interests. This article addresses such potential in CS by discussing a two-year study that was conducted on 51 Black/African- American female students who were enrolled in an introductory and intermediate CS course at a historically black university in the mid-Atlantic United States. In these respective courses, the assigned final project allowed students to choose thei r own original projects while showcasing their learned computational knowledge and developed programming competencies. The objective of this study was to observe the types of project topics that these 51 women, in particular, chose for their assigned final projects in these respective courses. The results revealed that 92% of the topics chosen tended to be ones that were altruistic in nature. Likewise, this study reflects potential support for the ability of CS to exhibit inclusive spaces for such i nterests. Keywords—Black/AA women, altruism, CS spaces I. INTRODUCTION & RELEVANT LITERATURE Increasing diversity and inclusivity within the field of Computer Science (CS) has been a longstanding issue-- especially broadening participation for women. Within higher education, women have been underrepresented amongst CS majors for some time [4]. Also, research suggests biases against women within the labor market [3, 6]. Despite the need for more women in CS, literature indicates that there are critical gender differences related to STEM interests that must also be acknowledged-- specifically the general preference
- 29. among women for occupations that center around working with people versus things [5]. While research discusses the interests of women in general and how they inform STEM- related decisions, studies concerning Black/African American (AA) women’s STEM interests are scant. Furthermore, there is a need to explore the interests of these women in CS given their underrepresentation even relative to women from other racial/ethnic groups [7]. Moreover, scholarship notes that collegiate Black/AA women in computing sciences report feelings of cultural isolation and subordination [2]. Given the specific barriers of Black/AA women in CS, and literature which suggests a general preference amongst women for professions that emphasize working with people, this study explores how such an orientation may manifest amongst Black/AA undergraduate women within undergraduate CS coursework. A. Motivating Research Questions The following research questions are examined: 1) To what extent do Black women exhibit a people-centered interest within their undergrad CS coursework? 2) Is such an interest higher for Black/AA women vs Black/AA men? 3) In what ways does such an interest manifest amongst Black/AA women? II. RESEARCH DESIGN A. Target Courses This study was conducted as a pilot study over a two-year semester span from Spring 2017 to Spring 2019 using data from a CS2 programming course and an advanced programming course at a historically black university in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The CS2 course
- 30. exposes students to introductory-level programming in Python while the advanced programming course exposes students to intermediate-level programming in C++. Each course contains a final project that examines the students’ ability to self- identify a computational problem that is original in nature, identify and apply the appropriate data structures and coding paradigms to solve it, and confidently defend the data structures and coding paradigms chosen to build their solution. During the latter semesters, students conducted their final projects in groups in an effort to develop group-based learning experiences and skills. B. Procedure Document analysis [1] was conducted using data from the two CS courses. These particular courses were selected for this study because: 1) they are taught by the same instructor and 2) a final project is consistently a requirement for course completion. Document analysis of the final project topics was used to generate themes that represent the nature of the students’ expressed topic of interest. These interests were then Edward Dillon Department of Computer Science Morgan State University Baltimore, MD, USA [email protected] categorized on the basis of people-centered vs non-people- centered foci. Eighty-one projects were evaluated: 45 projects were done by male students (control group), while 36 projects were linked to the observed women students (experimental
- 31. group). III. DATA ANALYSIS & FINDINGS A. Demographics This sample included 51 females and 53 males enrolled in the indicated CS courses. Ninety-one percent of the male students were Black/AA, 4% were Asian, 4% were Hispanic/Latino, and 2% were Arabian. No non-Black female students were enrolled in the courses. The sample included students ranging from freshmen to seniors. Ninety-three percent of these students were CS majors. B. Centralized Themes Figure 1 provides a dual bar chart reflecting the trending topics from all 81 projects, which are separated by the control and experiment groups, respectively. Based on analysis of the final projects, the following themes emerged regarding the students’ final project topical areas: Education, Entertainment, Financial, Food, Health, Sports, Travel, and Other. For the experimental group, projects related to Education and Health were most prevalent, followed by projects related to finances. For the control group, projects most often fell into the Other category followed by the Financial theme. Amongst the experimental group, there were also 7 projects that exhibited multi-theme characteristics (these scenarios were not the case for the control group). These 7 projects were classified as: Education/Financial, Education/Health, Financial/Health, or Financial/Travel, respectively.
- 32. Fig. 1. Centralized Project Themes and their frequencies of occurrence. C. Projects: People-Centered vs. Non-People-Centered Another aspect of this analysis was to determine gender differences regarding people-oriented vs non-people-oriented topical areas. Amongst the control group, 51% of the projects emphasized working with people in some capacity. Subjects regarding Financial and Education exhibited the highest trends for this group (as noted in Figure 2). Amongst the experimental group, 92% of the projects were people-oriented in nature. Subjects regarding Health, Education, and Financial exhibited the three highest trends for this group. When observing the projects categorized as Other for both groups, it was found that only 20% of these projects amongst the control group were people-centered, while 100% of these projects amongst the experimental group were people-centered. Fig. 2. Projects that were found to be People-Centered (both groups). IV. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION Guided by existing literature regarding interest differences by gender and implications for STEM [5], this study explored the particular interests of Black/AA women in
- 33. CS. Such a focus is important given the low representation of this demographic in CS, and the need to better understand their interest to broaden their participation in CS fields. The Black/AA women in this study exhibited people-centered interests within their undergraduate CS coursework at higher rates than their male counterparts. They connected these interests employing their computational competencies to address real-world issues in areas that emphasize working with people. The ability to make these connections was fostered by a final project that allowed students to choose a project topic related to their interests and employ appropriate CS computational skills to develop a solution to address that topic. From a pedagogical and inclusivity standpoint, this study suggests that decisions employed when designing student assignments may help to create an inclusive classroom that allows students to explore their interests in authentic ways. Such an approach may also be a fruitful way for women to explore the ways in which CS can be understood as a field with applications that focuses on working with people and helping others. REFERENCES [1] G. A. Bowen, “Document analysis as a qualitative research method,” Qualitative research journal, vol. 9(2), 2009, pp. 27-40. [2] BWiC. Black Women in Computing, 2016, Retrieved from http://blackwomenincomputing.org/about-2/. [3] S. Kolhatkar, “The tech industry’s gender-discrimination problem,” The New Yorker, pp 20, November 2017. [4] R. D. Robnett, “Gender bias in STEM fields: Variation in prevalence and
- 34. links to STEM self-concept,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 40(1), 2016, pp. 65-79. [5] P. Sankar, “The pervasive bias against female computer science majors.,” Fortune Magazine, 2015. [6] J. Steinke, M. K. Lapinski, N. Crocker, A. Zietsman- Thomas, Y. Williams, S. H. Evergreen, & S. Kuchibhotla, “Assessing media influences on middle school–aged children's perceptions of women in science using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST),” Science Communication, vol. 29(1), 2007, pp. 35-64. [7] R. Su, J. Rounds, and P. I. Armstrong, “Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests,” Psychological bulletin, 135(6), 2009, pp. 859 - 884. << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 050SWOP051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.7
- 35. /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 0 /ParseDSCComments false /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo false /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo true /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Remove /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false
- 36. /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true /AbadiMT-CondensedLight /ACaslon-Italic /ACaslon-Regular /ACaslon-Semibold /ACaslon-SemiboldItalic /AdobeArabic-Bold /AdobeArabic-BoldItalic /AdobeArabic-Italic /AdobeArabic-Regular /AdobeHebrew-Bold /AdobeHebrew-BoldItalic /AdobeHebrew-Italic /AdobeHebrew-Regular /AdobeHeitiStd-Regular /AdobeMingStd-Light /AdobeMyungjoStd-Medium /AdobePiStd /AdobeSongStd-Light /AdobeThai-Bold /AdobeThai-BoldItalic /AdobeThai-Italic /AdobeThai-Regular /AGaramond-Bold /AGaramond-BoldItalic /AGaramond-Italic /AGaramond-Regular /AGaramond-Semibold /AGaramond-SemiboldItalic /AgencyFB-Bold /AgencyFB-Reg /AGOldFace-Outline /AharoniBold /Algerian /Americana
- 69. ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 2.00333 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150
- 70. /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 2.00333 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 600
- 71. /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00167 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description <<
- 76. 4006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e 0030002003ba03b103b9002003bc03b503c403b103b303b503bd0 3ad03c303c403b503c103b503c2002003b503ba03b403cc03c303 b503b903c2002e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a stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata pogodnih za pouzdani prikaz i ispis poslovnih dokumenata koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN <FEFF00410020006800690076006100740061006c006f0073002
- 77. 00064006f006b0075006d0065006e00740075006d006f006b0020 006d00650067006200ed007a00680061007400f30020006d00650 06700740065006b0069006e007400e9007300e900720065002000 e900730020006e0079006f006d00740061007400e1007300e1007 2006100200073007a00e1006e0074002000410064006f00620065 002000500044004600200064006f006b0075006d0065006e00740 075006d006f006b0061007400200065007a0065006b006b006500 6c0020006100200062006500e1006c006c00ed007400e10073006 f006b006b0061006c00200068006f007a006800610074006a0061 0020006c00e9007400720065002e0020002000410020006c00e90 074007200650068006f007a006f00740074002000500044004600 200064006f006b0075006d0065006e00740075006d006f006b002 00061007a0020004100630072006f006200610074002000e90073 00200061007a002000410064006f0062006500200052006500610 0640065007200200035002e0030002c0020007600610067007900 200061007a002000610074007400f3006c0020006b00e90073015 10062006200690020007600650072007a006900f3006b006b0061 006c0020006e00790069007400680061007400f3006b0020006d0 0650067002e> /ITA (Utilizzare queste impostazioni per creare documenti Adobe PDF adatti per visualizzare e stampare documenti aziendali in modo affidabile. I documenti PDF creati possono essere aperti con Acrobat e Adobe Reader 5.0 e versioni successive.) /JPN <FEFF30d330b830cd30b9658766f8306e8868793a304a30883073 53705237306b90693057305f002000410064006f0062006500200 050004400460020658766f8306e4f5c6210306b4f7f75283057307 e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103055308c305f00200 05000440046002030d530a130a430eb306f300100410063007200 6f0062006100740020304a30883073002000410064006f0062006 5002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee5 964d3067958b304f30533068304c3067304d307e3059300230533 06e8a2d5b9a3067306f30d530a930f330c8306e57cb30818fbc307f 3092884c3044307e30593002> /KOR
- 78. <FEFFc7740020c124c815c7440020c0acc6a9d558c5ec0020be44 c988b2c8c2a40020bb38c11cb97c0020c548c815c801c73cb85c00 20bcf4ace00020c778c1c4d558b2940020b3700020ac00c7a50020 c801d569d55c002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460 020bb38c11cb97c0020c791c131d569b2c8b2e4002e0020c774b8 07ac8c0020c791c131b41c00200050004400460020bb38c11cb29 40020004100630072006f0062006100740020bc0f002000410064 006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e0 0300020c774c0c1c5d0c11c0020c5f40020c2180020c788c2b5b2c 8b2e4002e> /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken waarmee zakelijke documenten betrouwbaar kunnen worden weergegeven en afgedrukt. De gemaakte PDF- documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR <FEFF004200720075006b0020006400690073007300650020006 9006e006e007300740069006c006c0069006e00670065006e0065 002000740069006c002000e50020006f007000700072006500740 0740065002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002d00 64006f006b0075006d0065006e00740065007200200073006f006 d002000650072002000650067006e0065007400200066006f0072 0020007000e5006c006900740065006c006900670020007600690 073006e0069006e00670020006f00670020007500740073006b00 7200690066007400200061007600200066006f007200720065007 4006e0069006e006700730064006f006b0075006d0065006e0074 00650072002e0020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0 065006e00740065006e00650020006b0061006e002000e5007000 6e00650073002000690020004100630072006f006200610074002 00065006c006c00650072002000410064006f0062006500200052 0065006100640065007200200035002e003000200065006c006c0 0650072002e> /POL <FEFF0055007300740061007700690065006e006900610020006 4006f002000740077006f0072007a0065006e0069006100200064 006f006b0075006d0065006e007400f3007700200050004400460
- 83. /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents suitable for reliable viewing and printing of business documents. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [600 600] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice Project: Exploring the Intersection of Black/AA Women CS Majors and how they Identify with the Field Motivation: This purpose of this project is to examine the context for how Black women computer science (CS) majors identify with the field of CS at different stages of their matriculation. Due to unfavorable stereotypes and perceptions that CS can impose on underrepresented groups like Black women, such presumptions have been noted to impose an adverse impact on their representation. Likewise, these actions can serve as determinants for how Black women identify with the field of CS.
- 84. To study this intersection in greater detail, case studies are being conducted on a sample of Black women CS majors at Morgan State University, who are in one of three different stages of their exposure to the CS matriculation experience. These three stages will be comprised of: 1) Freshmen and Sophomore majors who are in the early stages of their matriculation, 2) Juniors and Seniors who are in the later stages their matriculation and/or in preparation of graduating with their degrees in CS, and 3) Postgraduates who are embarking upon the next chapter of their lives as practitioners in the field of CS. Qualitative insights about Black women’s CS identity are collected through a series of focus groups on Black women participants in CS who represent each of the three aforementioned stages of the CS matriculation experience, respectively. One objective for these focus groups is to capture and examine primary data about these women’s experiences and facets of their CS identity at different stages of their participation and contribution to the CS community. We will also explore the factors that contribute to their CS identification at these various stages. Another objective is to study how these women identify with the field of CS at these different stages to see if such identities potentially evolve over time. In meeting these objectives, we seek to better understand how Black women’s CS identification is shaped by the intersection of their racialized and gendered experiences. Official Timeline: The following table provides a timeline and descriptive details for the aforementioned case study:
- 85. Table 1: Timeline and Descriptive Details Recruiting & Pre Survey (Already Complete): - Recruited Black/AA Female CS Majors (N=25) from 3 different stages on the CS matriculation experience (Recruited occurred throughout February 2021). - Each recruited participant received a Pre Survey with containing both demographical and preliminary questions about their current identity and experiences in CS (Pre Surveys were administered throughout February 2021). Focus Group Assessments (Occurring Now): - These 25 participants were assigned to 1 of 13 focus groups assessments that comprised of 1 to 3 participants per session (Dates ranged from March 25th to April 12th). - The main objective of the focus group assessments were to gather feedback from the participants regarding 1) how they identify with CS and 2) their personal experiences as a CS majors/practitioners in the field. - During some of these focus group discussions, I assisted with asking a set of questions to
- 86. these participants. Data Analysis & Report (April & May 2021): - Each focus group assessment was conducted via Zoom and recorded for further analysis. - These recordings will be transcribed using a professional transcribing system called Rev.com. - I will personally be assigned the responsibility to clean and analyze the data from the PRE surveys that were administered in February. He will receive training and guidance from Dr. Dillon with this process. - If necessary, I will submit (or present) a report to his COSC 499 course that consists of his experiences with this project as well as notable findings that were detected in the PRE Survey of this case study. Organizational change and large group interventions Leith, Martin . Career Development International ; Bradford Vol. 1, Iss. 4, (1996): 19-23.
- 87. ProQuest document link ABSTRACT Six conditions are proposed which successful change efforts need to fulfill: self-determined and self-managed change process; broad stakeholder involvement; comprehensive awareness of current reality; creative mindset; systems thinking; and change model based on trust and co- operation. It is suggested that future search, real time strategic change and open space technology meet most or all of these conditions, and a brief description of each method is provided. FULL TEXT Martin Leith: Managing Director, The Centre for Large Group Interventions, London, UK The six major weaknesses Seventy per cent or more of all organization-wide change programmes - even some of the best designed ones - fail to produce the desired results[1]. What is going wrong? It may be because the conventional approach to
- 88. organizational change has six major structural weaknesses. Change is imposed Most organizational change programmes are designed by experts and top management who assume that people will be against the proposed changes, and will therefore need to be told to make them happen, or be persuaded of their benefits. The vehicle for this telling and selling is generally the cascade session. Here, employees may buy into the changes, only later to experience "buyer's remorse" which gets expressed as resistance or even sabotage. The designers - often with the best of intentions - demand that people implement their design without modifcation, whereas the implementers usually want to adapt the design to fit their individual situations. This can lead to an escalating pattern where the more the designers seek compliance, the more the implementers do their own thing, or do nothing, ultimately resulting in the failure of the programme. Stakeholder involvement is narrow Designers of conventional change programmes generally exclude the vast majority of internal stakeholders from the planning process. Also, they tend to ignore important
- 89. external stakeholder groups such as suppliers, customers and the local community. The opportunity to create a more widely-shared vision of the future is therefore lost, and key stakeholders may fail to provide vitally- needed support. Appreciation of current reality is limited As a consequence of failing to involve from the outset everyone who will be affected by the change, an incomplete picture of current reality is created. Wise strategic decisions are unlikely to be made when informed by such a limited database. PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 8 Problem solving is the prevailing mindset Many models of organizational change are based on an elaboration of the problem-solving model[2], the shortcomings of which have been documented at length by Fritz[3]. Results, if any, tend to be incremental improvements rather than "order of magnitude" changes. Behavioural scientist Ron Lippett discovered that when groups focus on solving problems they become depressed, but
- 90. when they formulate plans by working backwards from what they really desire, they develop energy, enthusiasm, optimism and high commitment[4]. More recently, Senge[5] has written about the importance of moving towards a vision of the future that is shared by everyone in the organization. Not only is the problem-solving approach less effective in achieving the desired outcomes, it also results in minimal individual and organizational learning, and limited expansion of the organization's capacity to adapt. Linear thinking is employed Linear thinking usually leads to ineffective change strategies, for two reasons. First, it produces a programme with a predetermined sequence of steps leading the organization towards a fixed goal. Rarely are there any opportunities for the goal to be reviewed and, if necessary, redefined. But in the real world, changes in the internal and external operating environments may render the original goal obsolete. Second, the issue is not viewed in a broad enough context. If the complex web of causes and effects is not properly understood and delayed reactions are not taken into account, then there is a strong likelihood that the change programme will fail to achieve its
- 91. objectives. It many cases it will set the organization back even further. The change model is based on control and domination Fearing the unpredictable, chaotic nature of change and the threat of its unwanted consequences, managers employ pseudo-scientific change management techniques in a vain attempt to control the process and create predictable and measurable results. But although managers can control micro level changes, such as the introduction of new corporate stationery, at the macro level there are many variables which are beyond human control. Major change can no more be managed than the weather can be managed. Indeed, many change programmes are little more than ritual rain dances that satisfy the compelling need of men to do something in the face of a crisis. But whereas rain dances are harmless, change programmes stifle creativity by leaving no space for the unexpected to happen. The six conditions for success By considering the flip side of the weaknesses described above, six conditions for success can be identified. These
- 92. can be used to evaluate any new change approach which is under consideration. The change process is self-determined and self-managed The new approach will involve all those in the organization realizing for themselves that change is needed, by noticing the gap between current reality and the shared vision (see the third and fourth conditions). They will create strategies and action plans together, with each person taking responsibility for the successful implementation of these plans. There is broad stakeholder involvement The new approach will allow everyone with a stake in the future success of the organization to be actively and equally involved in the strategic planning process. As joint architects of the change strategy these stakeholders will have a strong sense of ownership of the change strategy and will therefore be heavily committed to achieving the mutually-agreed results. Awareness of current reality is comprehensive PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 8
- 93. The new approach will have all stakeholders contributing to the creation of a comprehensive database of strategic information, which will be kept up to date and made available to all concerned. By having a clear and complete understanding of current reality, wise strategic and operational decisions will be made. And with information widely available, power games will be reduced to a minimum. The prevailing mindset is one of creating a shared future The new approach will include the creation of a compelling vision that is shared by all stakeholders. Shared visions are highly motivating, they generate a great deal of mutual support because people feel they are all part of the same whole, and they create alignment as everyone is working towards the same ends[6]. Systems thinking is employed Systems thinking underpins the new approach. Seductively simple models of cause and effect will no longer form the basis of strategic decisions. Instead, organizational issues will be viewed in all their messy complexity. There will be an awareness of multiple causes and effects (i ncluding those which are greatly separated in time), mutual
- 94. casuation, and repeating patterns of behaviour. By replacing linear thinking with systems thinking, people will stop blaming each other and take personal responsibility for what happens. They will realize that control is an illusion, reframe failure as feedback, and be better able to adapt quickly to rapidly changing circumstances. Regular reviews, feedback meetings and debriefing sessions will enable individual and organizational learning to increase rapidly, with the result that the organization will have the adaptability it needs to survive and prosper. The change model is based on trust and co-operation The new approach will replace control with trust and domination with co-operation. Instead of trying to overpower the unseen forces of the natural world, people will gain creative power by co-operating with them. People will trust their own abilities and the ability of others to do the right thing when given sufficient information. And they will trust that the process of change will take the organization to wherever it needs to be, even if the destination is not the one they originally chose. Leaders will still make interventions, but they will be subtle and wise interventions like those described in The Tao of Leadership[7]. In this way people's creativity will be unlocked and successfully
- 95. harnessed. Large group interventions: a new approach to change So does such a new approach for creating strategic change, displaying all six critical strengths, actually exist? Possibly it does. On both sides of the Atlantic a growing number of organizations, including Accor, Boeing, Ford, Marriott Hotels and 3M, are using large group interventions as a way of moving beyond the limitations of the conventional approach to change. A large group intervention consists of one or more interactive events, togther with the pre-event planning and the follow-up activities flowing from the event. Each gathering is attended by a large number of participants (ten to 2,000 or more), from all levels and functions of the organization plus representatives from other key stakeholder groups. Together the participants address real issues of strategic importance and thereby enable the organization to move towards a shared vision of the future. There are at least 20 different methods which can be used to create a large group event[8]. Of these, the three methods which are being adopted most widely are future search, real time strategic change and open space technology (see Table I).
- 96. The three main large group intervention methods Method no 1: future search The main facts about this method are: - primary purpose: system-wide strategic planning; - developer: Marvin Weisbord; - length: two to three days; PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 8 - group size: 12-64 plus. Brief description of the process A steering committee consisting of eight or so key stakeholders plans the future search conference, at which participants sit at round tables in mixed stakeholder groups, eight people to a table, and work through the five stages of the future search process: 1 Review the past from personal, organizational and global perspectives; identify the events, trends and developments shaping the future.