Page 238 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh12v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:29 PM Page 221

Authenticity in diagnosis

Authenticity in diagnosis

It is important to recognize that diagnosis is not simply a question of data col-
lection and analysis. Because any data will be partial, it is important that we
engage all stakeholders in the diagnosis process and that we organize around the
idea that diagnosis is a process of ‘sense making’, following Senge (1990) among
others. Meaning and interpretation are important. We see a good set of figures for
performance but what does that mean? Better than last year, but what does that
mean? The best performance in the world for your, sector. And so on.
Following the work of Argyris (1990) and Argyris and Schon (1978), we are
interested in informed choice. In a real sense we seek authenticity in diagnosis.
Smale (1998) argues along similar lines, identifying three important patterns of
behaviour relevant to any discussion of diagnosis:
■ self-fulfilling prophecies;
■ self-defeating strategies;
■ mutually defeating interactions.
Regarding the first, he notes the example of a bank trading normally which is then
hit by a rumour of failure. So all depositors rush to withdraw, creating a run on the
bank. He also refers to studies of the impact of teacher expectations of performance
on pupil performance. Obvious enough in truth. But what of the second pattern?
Where change requires significant alternatives to patterns of behaviour which
are habitual, we can often observe self-defeating strategies at work. Clearly this is
a challenging intervention. Often little attempt is made to follow up initial train-
ing with coaching. And yet the people involved may be behaving in ways which
are so habitual that they do not really think about it, i.e. their understanding is
at the tacit level.
Moreover, they may still be subject to performance management systems
which reinforce old ways of doing things. Such systems will have more impact if
early attempts at new ways of working appear to fail. Approaching such a situa-
tion with a ‘resistance to change’ model will be self-defeating.

Conflict is a natural part of change. In the setting just described, the clash of
expectations will certainly lead to a level of conflict. For on the one hand my
manager expects me to adopt a new working. On the other hand, as I begin to do
so my performance is less effective – initially. But at the same time and faced by
that lower performance, my manager places pressure on me to deliver – and it is
easier to do so using the former way of working. Dissonance will often arise here.
Moreover, if it is not possible to raise concerns over the impact of the existing
performance management system and the lack of coaching during the diagnosis,
then the change attempted is likely to fail.
But what of the third pattern? Smale (1998), looking at social work, notes:
Understanding how self-fulfilling prophecies, self-defeating strategies and
mutually defeating interactions operate can lead to a clear analysis of the unin-
tended outcomes of change agent activity, particularly where our attempts to
help people further entrench them in their role as ‘problem people’: where our
intervention to include them confirms them as socially excluded people.

221