Dialogical Organisational Development
Also got Dialogical Organisational Development from Wendy, which shows attempts at collaborative welfare state development in Denmark. Changes are occuring, but the question is, how deep. And the basis of the multiple-system change we are suggesting, the depth is unquestionably deep. I suspect the DOD will suffer from the same financial restrictions which traditional economic imposes. Incremental change is insufficient. A fundamental shift at multiple systems is required.
Here, study and experiment provided the basis for organizational learning and development rather than analysis and implementation of known concepts. The term Dialogic OD marks a return to a set of original virtues on taking action in changing organizations – taking into account the past
30 years of research and developments in practice.
The unifying point is that a family of ideas comprises a field of basic positions, with an accompanying set of methods for practice. The basic positions are known as social constructivism, complexity theory and self-organization, discourse and dialogue theory, the theory of complex responsive processes of relationship formation, generativity and collaborative studies (ibid). Together, these positions seek to paint a picture of organizations as complex social communities bound by interactions, language and conversation.
From p66 Towards More and Better Welfare Through Dialogic Organization Development: The “We Figure It Out Together” Project, by Jacob Storch and Julie Nørgaard Aarhus, Denmark, International Journal of Collaborative-Dialogic Practices, 10(1), 2020: 61-83. And from p67:
The purpose of methods is their use in practice! Central to the aforementioned understanding of dialogic change is the confrontation of a classic dominant idea first articulated by Kurt Lewin (Bushe & Marshak 2015: 12) in 1947, which holds that interventions follow a three-stage process
of “unfreeze, move, re-freeze”. Underlying this assumption is the notion of organizations as stable, with change being temporary in nature. This perspective was suited to the industrialized organizations of that time, in a market where development was slow enough to allow for ongoing adaptation of organizations based on analysis. Today we know that organizations are dynamic, complex social phenomena, and that change is a constant ongoing activity. As the post-industrial age has come to dominate a global, digital world, the need for a new approach and understanding in relation to change is greatly needed.
I bring this level of change, and it comes from in-the-field practice, from the white-water constant change of engaging adolescents freshly. In terms of academia, I need to remind myself that academia is one of the oldest institutional structures we have, outdating companies while at the same time being the most recently commercialised sectors in the modern world, otherwise I shall end up waking up hot and bothered, rather than pursuing more pleasant mindflow.
If the methods I employ are not acceptable by this department or indeed this university, I put this down to the underlying archaic ‘stable’ structures of departments, outdated knowledge base, inferior study methods, ineffective social science axioms. It will change, but whether it will lead the change or be merely pulled along by changes (like it will be with advent of AI), is up to people like my supervisors. They are gatekeepers of change at the moment, and their understanding of collaboration is poor. They nonetheless are trying to help me, but only as much as they are fulfilling the traditional structures within which they are placed and which they are aware are insufficient for the level of disorder we face globally.
My supervisors are not exhibiting the level of courage needed, but this may be more to do with the discipline they are in. I must persist with trying to define the DIKW which ABC State appears to subvert.