Hi Tony,

Thanks for the article you sent me called “Underpinning OD Practice with Data”* – which in my view is a brilliant response to “What constitutes Data in OD practice?”

Brilliant beause it inspired my thinking, made lots of connections to my own working and consulting experiences and raised my energy level quite a bit: I got excited about the ideas spread out and the complexity and beauty of the work of a good OD practitioner – and of how it ressembles what we teach in our Gestalt-in-OD programmes!

The author – James Traeger (who I understand was a participant in one of our first programmes…) unfolds the topic vividly with metaphors and stories, clever questions and simple explanations to help understand rather complex issues. He mixes with a lot of self-reflection, examples from his practice and a good sense of humour – all imbedded in the story of two OD practitioners sitting on a fence in the country and having a dialogue on the use of data in OD (I think there must be cows in the background too…)

…and while I write all this, I ask myself what the data is that underpins these conclusions and interpretations of mine…what has to do with the article – what has to do with me….what is the interacton ? Am I really getting to the jist of it? Or do I read in something that is very different from what the focus of the author was…? What do I want to say really?

Ok, I will try to be a bit less emotional and more serious and “professional” (whatever that is…).

So what does the article talk about?

• Firstly, it describes the dilemma of what data to collect when you don’t really know what is important and the “distortion” when subjectively reading or interpreting data; (in Gestalt terms: what are the patterns or Gestalten that come up for me?)
• Then it addresses the question of appropriate indicators or what data really measures or tells you what you want to know
• …which leads to the question whether there is such a thing as “truth” or whether everything is in flow (in the process of becoming). The issue of static vs. systemic and process views and cause-effect chains vs. patterns and fields etc. (Newtonian vs. Field perspective)
• It gives examples of the fact that everything an OD practitioner does has an effect or impact, e.g. “only” asking questions or “just” observing and highlights the idea of “presence” as an intervention per se. (The author describes sitting in a restaurant watching the staff serve breakfast, considering what data to use when applying different OD perspectives to this situation, e.g. taylorist, motivational,…; but as he notices the staff, he notices that they notice him noticing them. And in turn this impacts on them making them more self-conscious and slightly embarrassed) (In other terms: the change in the field that changes the field and the issues around presence)
• Scientific data vs. individual experience and the importance of meeting the client where s/he is rather than imposing “the truth” or in the author’s words: how do we use what we know or select to know to have an impact towards an agenda? (In Gestalt terms: the Paradoxical Theory of change, meaning that change happens when we accept what is and not when we impose what should be and push for a change of views…)
• Looking inwards (at yourself) before looking outwards as an indication of what is going on in the wider field (parallel processes)

The way in which the article is written is conversational and dialogic (in the authors definition: focussing on the truth as the space inbetween and not being nicy-nicy with the aim of building a relationship between the author and the reader) — and as said great fun to read.

James Traeger has 3 recommendations for dealing with data:

1. Use of the term “capta” rather than “data” to express the subjective aspects of how we perceive the world; (data = what is “given”, capta = what we “take”); applied to OD it could mean shifting the discussion with a client towards a more honest thinking.
2. Shift the diagnostic perspective from “data analysis” to “pattern spotting” (or looking for Gestalten and making sense/meaning)
3. OD work should focus on fostering “organisational health” rather than “organisational improvement”, i.e. apply a wider perspective going beyond the goal of making more money or being more efficient and “making organisations places that are fit for people to dwell in and thrive”.

I am curious to hear your response !

^*  James Traeger: Underpinning OD with Data.
In: Ed Griffin, Mike Alsop, Martin Saville, Grahame Smith (ed), 2014: A field Guide für Organisation Development — Taking Theory into Practice; Gower Publishing

 

 

Data-interpretation