Search results

Asserts and explores the claim that further headway in substantive wide‐scale learning organization development is seriously jeopardised unless individual organizations objectively measure their progress. In part 1 a new evaluative standpoint grounded in “New Science” is suggested, and foundations for two non‐traditional discriminant approaches based on this standpoint are discussed. The potential to link such assessments to business performance is evaluated. In part 2, applications of these two approaches in organizational settings are reviewed.

This article presents an application in organizational consulting of a model that utilises the concept of “energy”. This model has its roots in an ancient framework, the chakra system. The approach is emergent, and to date has proved insightful for managers and others in settings such as higher education, coaching, and consultancy. The article describes a specific application of the framework in an organizational consultancy project. The consultant used the framework to guide a collaborative inquiry by organizational participants into their experience of the organization, leading to formulation of intended changes. Issues for practice and for critical reflection are raised.

Asserts and explores the claim that further headway in substantive wide‐scale learning organization development is seriously jeopardised unless individual organizations objectively measure their progress. In part 1, a new evaluative standpoint grounded in “new science” is suggested, and foundations for two non‐traditional discriminant approaches based on this standpoint are discussed. The potential to link such assessments to business performance is evaluated. In part 2, applications of these two approaches in organizational settings are reviewed.

The term “transformation” is much used in the practice and literature of management and organizations. We are curious as to why there has been little challenge to or questioning of usage of the term. In this paper we identify a number of dimensions on which usage of ‘transformation’ appears to vary. This results in a tentative classification into a matrix of four types. While these clusters overlap they imply a variety of agendas, expectations and modes of working, with widely differing implications for those involved in associated change processes. The aim of the article is to stimulate debate about the idea of transformation, not to attempt to define what transformation “is”. Thus we treat this variety of usage as interesting and potentially significant, not as a problem or as an inadequacy of terminology that has to be resolved.

This chapter describes the work-life balance project, which was the first to investigate the potential of clean language as an academic research interview methodology (Lawley, Meyer, Meese, Sullivan, & Tosey, 2010). It resulted in the publication of an article in the British Journal of Management (Tosey, Lawley, & Meese, 2014) that has since been cited in several academic papers, including Langley and Meziani's (2020) review of interview methodologies in the field of organisational change. This chapter describes the project's methodology and findings and highlights six lessons learnt that have helped to inform the further development of clean language interviewing.

In this book the terms ‘clean language’ and ‘clean language interviewing’ are written using lower case, according to the convention of the American Psychological Association (sixth edition). ‘Clean language interviewing’ is sometimes abbreviated to CLI.

The purpose of this chapter is to enable interviewers to understand how they can elicit interviewee-generated data that are not ‘muddied’ by the researcher. The chapter has three main components. First, we discuss the authorship of data and illustrate how questions may unwittingly affect this authorship. Second, we outline the problem with ‘leading’ questions and introduce three features of leading questions that are relevant to researchers from different research epistemologies. Third, we introduce the ‘cleanness rating’, which is a way to categorise how questions are used in an interview according to the extent to which they are leading or ‘clean’. We conclude with the difference this can make for researchers, including enhancing the capacity for interviewers to reflect on their practice and making their role in the generation of interview data more transparent.

Modelling is a research methodology that has received little academic attention since it began to be formulated in the 1970s. On the spectrum of clean language interviewing (CLI) applications described in Chapter 1, the most sophisticated is modelling, and especially modelling that takes place in real time during the interview.

This chapter defines what we mean by ‘a model’ and ‘modelling’ and explains how they are related to CLI. We situate the chapter by recounting how modelling became linked to CLI. To conclude we consider some of the methodological challenges faced by both the interviewee and interviewer involved in a modelling research project.

We also explain how interviewee metaphors discussed in Chapter 3 can support the modelling process. Much of the modelling that takes place during an interview resides in the background of the interaction. To illustrate modelling we provide an annotated transcript of a symbolic modelling interview that uses clean language to model the skill of ‘knowing what is essential’.