the next level or a whole new game?

The most recent addition (in process) to my collection of concepts and tools for change is 'Action Science', as based on the book by Argyris et al (1985). The first song of praise is that this book provides the most lucid articulation of how to engage in a change process at the inter-subjective level that I have yet come across. Putting it into practice of course is likely to be an immense challenge at the level of the practioner because it demands subjecting onself to profound and systematic scrutiny (apparently something that gets easier with practice). The second is that it is availble for free download from the internet at http://www.actiondesign.com.

Meanwhile my experiences in Delwara have been interesting, challenging and exciting. Some key events included (i) a mini-workshop with the core members of the project team focusing on objectives, roles and funcioning of the team; (ii) a mini-workshop with the youth team focusing on both self and group assessment. The key issues surfacing in both groups were around the issue of coordination, communication and reporting though the particulars of the problem appear to be quite different in both contexts for a number of reasons. For example, in the context of the whole project team there are many different activities and functions that operate almost independently yet have to be synchronised (synergised?) in order to contribute to the common goal in the most effective manner. At this level, I have not been able to identify interpersonal issues as a major source of problems. On the other hand, in the three-person group of the youth team, interpersonal issues constitute the core of the problem. One importantissue that surfaced during this meeting (beyond the three major issues identified earlier) was 'understanding the other person'. Both groups were involved in a reflection and sharing process to identify purpose, strengths and enabling factors, weaknesses and constraining factors, things that could be changed at the group level and things that could be changed at the individual level to contribute to this change. Both groups succeeded in describing what they felt should change and there was broad agreement on this by all involved. Articulating change at the group level proved much easier than locating individual responsibility: in the large group all but one of the desired changes was at the group level rather than the individual level and in the small group participants initially felt that being asked to identify their own weaknesses was unfair or somehow not right: "how can we know our weaknesses? That is for others to judege."

Both discussions ended in a collective pledge to make the necessary changes (communicating more and more effectively, having more regular meetings, reporting more systematically, etc.) by the various participants involved. However, it remains to be seen whether these commitments are adequate to bring about the desired changes and the presumed resulting improvements in the functionality of the project and youth teams. My hunch is that the answer is: only to a very limited extent. If I take the youth team as an example, I see the problem as being entrenched more profoundly in inter-personal interactions based on people's theories-in-use (i.e. the tacit logic that informs the way they act as opposed to the theory that they claim to uphold). One of the key issues here is that espousing (or being able to articulate) a certain logic does not equate to being able to put it into practice. This is something that has to be learned through a process of collaborative inquiry into these theories and I hope that this is something I will be able to facilitate in the coming weeks (unless it is not necessary in which case I would also be quite happy)!

Some reflections that came about while reading Action Science and thinking back over the discussion with the youth team include:

(1) I have to learn how to use the group dialogue process more effectively to get deeper into the issue in question and to engage the participants in a more reflective process. I think this probably means I have to identify what it is that I am doing that prevents this from happening as I am in the position of facilitator and therefore it is up to me to intervene to help probe these areas.

(2) I should be more systematic about introducing hypotheses into the discussion process. For example, by making statements such as: "based on what you said [blah blah blah], i get the impression that you are trying to [blah blah blah blah] in order to [blah blah blah]." I should then invite people to inquire into this matter or try to disprove it. "What do you think?" More generally, I should perhaps be more explicit about patterns that I feel I can observe in the functioning of the group: "Things you have said [e.g. blah blah blah] have indicated to me that you do not really acknowledge each other's skills or competencies and that you are not making the necessary efforts to get to know each other, to learn from each other. I further believe that this makes it difficult for you to work together and achieve the kinds of results that you say you want to achieve. What do you feel about this statement?"

(3) I should be more explicit about the purpose of the session and the norms that I am trying to apply and should invite discussion on this.

(4) I should go more with the flow and probe into people's reactions more systematically. E.g. if the response appears negative, explain why I feel their response is negative (cite what they said), see whether the response can be taken as negative and ask for their feedback. I should also make more of an effort to ask participants if they want to try out or propose alternative ways of exploring the issue in front of us. For example, when people said that self-criticism was too difficult (implying something along the lines of 'we are unable to judge ourselves' or 'we do not want to do so publicly') and that others are better placed to make these criticisms, I could have proposed something along the lines of: "If you would prefer to discuss each other's weaknesses rather than identify your own, I do not have a problem with this. What do you think, shall we do this instead?" This may have led to some other interesting discussions.

(5) I should try to find out what about my own behaviour may be making it difficult for other people to say what they want to say. Hopefully doing some of the aforementioned steps will contribute to this but I should be busy trying to explore my own 'theories-in-use'.

(6) I should look for ways of reframing people's experiences without failing to acknowledge the significance of what they feel or experience in order to help the discussion or participants get out of ruts. The idea here is to help address a situation that is being constructed in an unhelpful frame (i.e. one that is not conducive to learning) by presenting the same situation in a new frame that adds more meaning and opens doors of possibility. For example, when one participants says: "Person X doesn't know anything about activity Y" this could be presented to people as a less extreme and more balanced perspective on the situation: "I think it would be fairer to present an assessment of the situation in this manner: Both you and person X look at activity Y in different ways. By finding out what each of you knows and doesn't know about activity Y you may both be able to learn something that will help you do activity Y in a more collaborative, complete and better manner. What do you think?"

These reflections are only really hypotheses that remain to be tested in a range of situations. Reading Action Science helped to put some of these thoughts into perspective. For one thing, I feel that I would be better able to deal with the kind of tension that surfacing inter-personal, work-related issues might unleash because I think I am more equipped with knowledge that could be applied to prevent unjustified statements from being exchanged and to facilitate the collaborative inquiry process. So perhaps there will be some news on this shortly...?

Other than this, the good news (latest, albeit brief and potentially incomplete feedback) is that the outcomes of the visioning workshop (for the state level network working on youth issues) were well appreciated at the national level where they were shared along with the outputs of 7 other states. My co-worker in this matter attended the national level general meeting and reported that everything went well and that everyone has basically agreed to what we came up with (although the vision and mission statements have undergone some kind of transformation) and also that the other states really had rather little to contribute on the matter. So, I can breathe a little easier. Upcoming workshops on strategies, monitoring and evaluation and proposal preparation are now also on the agenda so perhaps I can look forward to frequent and exciting interruptions to my regular work! I still need to do a comprehensive review of the last workshop to cull out important lessons that can be taken forwards to the next one.

Thank you and good day!