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:
- 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.
- Shift the diagnostic perspective from “data analysis” to “pattern spotting” (or looking for Gestalten and making sense/meaning)
- 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
Gestalt in OD 
Christina,
the first thing I want to say is how much I enjoyed reading your review of James Traeger’s chapter “Underpinning OD Practice with Data: Using Data Wisely”. It was lovely to hear how much you enjoyed reading the chapter and how readily you grasped and extracted so clearly, the main points.
I now recognise something about myself that I don’t particularly like. I read stuff – especially on topics I think I know something about – from a negative, cynical stance. I compete in my head, I want to find that for all the clever stuff that somebody else has written, I know better. That’s a hell of an inhibition to learning!
Your writing, your appreciative commentary and your clear grasp of some of the most important messages in James’s work provides me with a salutary lesson. I have now read the chapter again (or most of it) and an delighted and a little embarrassed to find there is much in the chapter to stimulate fresh thinking and new learning.
My thoughts go towards how the Gestalt approach in OD might support and perhaps add to James’s perspectives.
I really like the way James highlights how everything is data. In the preamble to the introduction he signals how all information taken in through the senses is a potential source of data. I agree.
The Gestalt Approach emphasises the value of wide angle sensing and observation skills; the ability to notice; to be able to both direct your attention to what is of interest and, in contrast, without direction or focus, to be open to anything and everything that is going on.
Later in the chapter, but perhaps without quite nailing it, he talks about the importance of self-awareness. One of the most powerful aspects of the Gestalt approach is the forensic examination of one’s own experience. It is vital as a practitioner to be able to recognise one’s own needs, concerns, feelings, intentions, preferences etc and how they are both informing what data I select and the meaning I attach to them and therefore how I respond to them.
I am often surprised at how much time and effort OD practitioners put into learning new techniques – for example, constellation work – while the core skill of self awareness so that practitioners are well equipped to: ‘own up to my bias’ as James puts it, is neglected.
To be able to recognise the filters and distortions in our own perceptions (and therefore both how we select what we notice and how we make meaning of data) requires high order awareness skills and a systematic process of continuous, rigorous self-examination. My experience is that this work is never finished.
The hard work of discovering my own bias and rigidity (so I can remove the resulting distortions from the data I select and interpret) has led me to return again and again to the Gestalt approach and to learning with and from people more skilled and better equipped than I am to discover what is really going on. This ‘no holds barred’ grappling with exciting and sometimes uncomfortable inner truths requires courage and determination. The rewards, though, in being more grounded and able to see the world more clearly are worth the effort.
I am not sure the chapter really gets to grips with this aspect – the practicalities of learning the skills of acquiring and using data?
Hi Tony,
I was fascinated by reading your response to my blog. Your self-assessment of what goes on when you read stuff that you know something about (or should know something about) triggered a lot of immediate reactions: Surprise and admiration about making such a statement in public. Quite courageous, I thought and it stimulated my thinking about how you and I are different.
Well, my experience of you is that you are critical and that you do not take in anything new and from someone else quickly. So you do certainly not avoid contact by being confluent, rather that you hold on to your “truths” and chew stuff properly before taking in and thus that you are probably more on the egotistic side.
So what is your negative stance good for? What is the danger of being less cynical and what would it take to loosen your boundaries???
Your remark about how you inhibit yourself from learning made me realise that I, on the other hand, am getting enthusiastic of what other people say, think and write and the downside is the danger of losing myself: Others are so brilliant – why did I not think of that? Why could I not write this? And then there is the possibility of forgetting what I know, what I have learned, my self-esteem could disappear and I get depressed: what an idiot am I compared to xyz!
So joining in with someone or letting in something new and not losing yourself seems not easy. How do “healthy” people just do this???
I was surprised you would say the core message is that all is data. For me, the core message of James article is: all that we consider data is coloured by our specific experience, our individual fields and therefore “data” (what is given) should rather be called “capta” (what is taken): it is what a human being selects and how s/he coulours it. Capta brings in the subjectivity of all information, as there is no such thing as clean data or “truth”.
But I agree with you that self-examination is core, as it informs me about how I select and colour what I take in from the environment, the data I have access to, what I choose, what I do not choose, etc.
Which leads me to the question of how to self-examine effectively. Clearly, blind spots are blind spots because we do not see them and therefore we need someone else to help us identify those spots and filters. But how do OD practitioners and Gestalt OD practicioners do this effectively? Is there a recipe? Gestalt groups? Supervision? Therapy – either as a client or as a student ? Talking to friends and colleagues? Blogging???
What is your experience of the best way of self-examination?
I suppose I take it as self evident and well understood that “there is no such thing as clean data or truth”. You and I often speak of Ed Nevis’s teaching on ‘multiple realities’ – everyone selects more or less intentionally and consciously from the infinite range of possible sources, the data that they recognise and use or discard and then, often, interpret to makes sense of their world. So yes data or capta – the point is, how does it help to recognise that one’s own perceptions are not a true or complete picture?
I suppose it enables dialogue – the ability to engage with others less certain of our own world view and open to seeing the things differently. And , yes, now I come to think of it, that is a critical capability for a good OD practitioner, so , I accept, James and you are making an important point!!
About the self examination thing.. how to do it. I have always said about our kind of OD and development work, if you are not working on your own development, you should not be working on others!’
At the heart of it is the willingness to question your own motivations, needs, desires, aversions, feelings etc. I think I use 3 main pathways:
1.Internal reflection – I do this in lots of different ways – it is, by now, a habit, to run a fine comb through my interactions with others, my feelings about myself and others, my current mood and preoccupations. I look for what the comb ‘snags’ on – where something from my current or past experience feels in some way disturbing or unsettling. I ask myself what this might be about.By now, I know myself pretty well and recognise a lot of times when I get into self justificaiton, feeling aggrieved or resentful, abandoned or rejected, blaming myself or others or incubating a sense of shame. These are all great signals that something needs deeper understanding and proper recognition and, probably, at some point, action.
ah, you will say, that doesn’t deal with the ‘blind spots’.. and you’re right so her comes the next pathway..
2. feedback – I don’t just mean the formal sort of stuff that you get in an organisation context during one or other kind of review process, I mean the reactions and responses I get.. or don’t get that seem to me ‘out of the normal run’ of the relationship. It could be a curt response to an email or a hint of complaint in a conversation, perhaps an uncharacteristically sharp ‘dig’ at my egotistical behaviour. I take all of these as a running commentary and sometime will ‘press a pause button’ in the flow of the relationship to ask if the other (or others) have something they need to tell me. Sometimes it takes a few nudges to get at what is going on. The hard part then is to listen and accept and really examine one’s own experience, intentions and behaviour. The critical question is, how much is the feedback about the other(s) and how much is new information (perhaps many times repeated but new in this setting at this moment) that generates fresh awareness.
So that’s two channels – the third is a kind of 5,000 mile service …
3. At least 2 or 3 times a year I spend 3 or 4 days in some kind of retreat. As you know, I’ve been a member of the ‘In-Service’ Group for more than 15 years now. We meet twice a year for a 3 day residential workshop, sometimes with an external facilitator but usually as a peer group. The group serves multiple purposes – different people come for different reasons. It comprises highly skilled psychotherapist educators and practitioners – people I trust to be able to ‘hold me to account’ and just ‘hold me’ while I examine the messy bits of my life or my way of being in the world. We all do this for eachother. It’s a place where I feel able to take risks exploring vulnerable, stuck and damaged parts of myself.
More recently I have started going on Buddhist silent meditation retreats. I want to say some more about my experiences there in another blog but all in all I think the effects are similar in terms of self examination and recognising filters, blind spots, avoidance and stuckness etc.
For me, I don’t think the first two channels would stay open if I didn’t keep this third – more systematic and externally supported channel going!
I don’t think there is one right way to maintain a sense of one’s own limitations and distortions. It can be done through therapy or one to one supervision or regular attendance at some kind of ‘here and now’ group as well as by the processes I describe above.
I know this process of regular and rigorous self examination is an essential part of what enables me to offer something to my organisational clients that they do not readily have access to from their normal internal organisation resources. I think it is an essential requirement for being a good OD practitioner .. it’s different from learning skills or techniques and its continuous maintenance work that you can never say you’ve finished…. like weeding the garden!