Talk given on February 15 2017 at De La Salle University Philippines. Lecture for Management Action Research MBA students, class of Professor Ben Teehankee

1. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE
IN ACTION RESEARCH
AN ACTION SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE
DR TIM ROGERS

2. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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

3. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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)

4. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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)

5. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
* 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

6. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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

7. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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

8. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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

9. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
A ‘MAP’ OF THE KEVIN AND THE SECTION HEADS CASE
KEVIN’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

10. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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

11. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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

12. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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?

13. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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

14. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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

15. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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

16. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
ACTION RESEARCH TO CONNECT THE INTERPERSONAL AND THE ORGANISATIONAL(ARCIO)
DESCRIPTIVE DATA: TWO-COLUMN CASE
Unsaid thoughts & feelings Actually said
Here 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.

17. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
ARCIO - DESCRIPTIVE DATA: TWO-COLUMN CASE PAGE 2
Unsaid thoughts & feelings Actually said
Here 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.

18. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
ARCIO - DESCRIPTIVE DATA: TWO-COLUMN CASE PAGE 3
Unsaid thoughts & feelings Actually said
Here 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.

19. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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

20. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
ARCIO - ANALYSIS: PATTERNS 1: COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS
ALISON 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

21. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
ARCIO - ANALYSIS: PATTERNS 2: COMPETING LOGICS

22. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
ARCIO - ANALYSIS: PATTERNS 3:
‘LAY’ INTERPRETATION VS
THEORY

23. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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’

24. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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

25. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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.

26. INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH
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”

27. ?