Search results

Extending the argument made in Bushe and Marshak (2009) of the emergence of a new species of Organization Development (OD) that we label Dialogic, to differentiate it from the foundational Diagnostic form, we argue that how any OD method is used in practice will be depend on the mindset of the practitioner. Six variants of Dialogic OD practice are reviewed and compared to aid in identification of a Weberian ideal-type Dialogic Mindset, consisting of eight premises that distinguish it from the foundational Diagnostic Mindset. Three core change processes that underlie all successful Dialogic OD processes are proposed, and suggestions for future research offered.

The purpose of this paper is to locate the dominant discourse on organizations and their management in the history of Western thought. Such location highlights the fundamental, taken‐for‐granted assumptions underlying the dominant discourse. The purpose is also to identify an alternative way of thinking about organizations, which derives from different fundamental assumptions.

The approach adopted in the paper is to review two fundamentally different approaches in Western thought to understanding the nature of the individual human agent, the organization and the relationship between them. One approach derives from the philosophy of Kant and the other from Hegel.

The exploration of different ways of thinking in this paper leads to a major undermining of the dominant discourse and overturns the most widespread prescriptions for strategic management and the management of change.

In doing so the paper has profound significance for the conceptualization of leadership and values in organizations.

This paper argues that to talk about organisations learning is to reify and anthropomorphise organisations. Instead of thinking of an organisation as if it were a thing or a person it is closer to experience to think of an organisation as the patterning of peoples' interactions with each other. This paper explores the assumptions that are being made when we talk about organisations or groups that learn, or about individuals learning in groups or organisations. It suggests an alternative to thinking in these ways, namely, that learning is an activity of interdependent people. If one takes the view an organisation is the organising activities of interdependent people, it leads to a particular perspective on learning. Much of the communicative and power relating activities of interdependent people take the form of continually iterated patterns of repetition in which meaning and power figurations have the quality of stability which we call identity. But because of the nonlinear iterative nature of human interaction there is always the potential for small differences to be amplified into transformative shifts in identity. Learning is then understood as the emerging shifts in the patterning of human communicative interaction and power relating. Learning is the activity of interdependent people and can only be understood in terms of self‐organising communicative interaction and power relating in which identities are potentially transformed. Individuals cannot learn in isolation and organisations can never learn.

This article notes the growing attractiveness of concepts “borrowed” from chaos theory in organizational studies. Many of these interpretations display sentiments broadly congruent with a “postmodern” approach to organization. Indeed chaos theory itself is presented as part of a similar postmodern shift within natural science. However, these sentiments have been subject to stinging criticism by scientists. Here, the deterministic underpinning of chaos theory is used to show that chaos theory is an entirely modernist enterprise. In this case the indeterministic messages taken by organizational theorists are something of a misunderstanding. Consequently, I discuss whether this is enough to threaten the interdisciplinary status of chaos theory, particularly when it is used in a self-consciously ‘metaphorical’ fashion.

The purpose of the article is to explore the implications of GP commissioning through the lens of complexity theory. The key point that the article attempts to rise is that GP commissioning does imply greater freedom, responsibility and ability to move the English NHS in a more public oriented, locally responsive and public health oriented direction. At the same time, as demonstrated by the Stacey diagram, it forces GPs into difficult, complex situations that lie outside of their traditional skill range and experiences and implores them to deal with a much wider range of actors and institutions that they are unfamiliar with and are well beyond their control.

This is a discussion paper that explores the recent proposals for GP commissioning from a complexity framework, and in particular the “Stacey diagram”.

The commissioning reforms may represent a healthy organisational transformation of the NHS and over time generate a number of positive outcomes. Nevertheless, with a complexity perspective, one can begin to understand why this reform is so challenging for GPs, and that it will take a whole new range of GP skills and decision‐making strategies (and maybe even a shift in the overall GP culture) in order to make it work.

To the author's knowledge this is the first attempt to use complexity theory to explore the strengths and weaknesses of GP commissioning.

The purpose of this paper is to challenge how we have traditionally thought about organisations and introduce two frameworks to enable us to understand how change in organisations might be facilitated better.

The paper discusses organisations as complex adaptive systems and uses complexity theory to inform two new frameworks for facilitating organisational learning and change.

In order for organisational learning to occur we need to change our mind-set of how we see organisations and to think of learning not just as individual but also as generative “communicative action” that emerge out of collaborative relationships.

The frameworks proposed are grounded in organisational learning literature and the experience of the author. The proposed agenda for organisational learning has yet to be acted upon and evaluated.

The frameworks can be used to enhance understanding of learning and change in organisations. The agenda for enabling organisational transformation identifies key steps to put the ideas developed in the paper into practice.

The approach advocated for use within organisations is one of empowerment and collaboration rather than top down direction.

The paper introduces new frameworks and a practical agenda to bring about organisational transformation through work-applied learning.

Executive development and education have proceeded on the basis of two developments as a result of shifts in government policy over the past two decades. The first is marketisation, the belief that marketplace ideology is best, and the belief that the private sector functions better and more rationally than the public sector. The second is performance, the belief that performance can be controlled. It is argued that these trends are myths that have developed into the performance cult. This paper argues that even knowing you cannot be in control doesn't stop you trying to be in control, but understanding what is happening enables us to stay active in negotiating our daily lives moment by moment.

From the perspective of being engaged with training, learning, development over four decades, my view is that HRD has never quite been able to decide whether its focus should be on individual needs (personal development as well as skills and knowledge improvement) or the organization’s business and strategic needs.

The Stumbling Stone method is a practical way of establishing a learning organisation. Mobilising employees bridges the gap between the legitimate system and the shadow system of the company. The method takes into account the view of the organisation as a complex adaptive system and provides means to link the legitimate system and the shadow system of the organisation thus tapping into the creativity resource of the employees.

Aims to expose the limitations of traditional management training and development in a rapidly changing global business environment. Three blue‐chip companies decided to develop a new approach to middle management development which sought to create more meaningful managerial and organizational learning. In developing a new forum and putting managers through the event, the companies were able to deal with personal development and business improvement together through the use of the “complexity map” – the participants′ own representation of their complexity. While the forum has had successes, its challenging approach provokes opposition as well as change. However, for organizational learning to occur, such risks must be taken.