Working Conversations

Anne Murphy & Chris Blantern, Re~View Partnership

For the last 3 years we have focused our research and practice on organisations and work groups that need to work across boundaries to get things done. Macro social and economic conditions increasingly point to the need for transcending traditional boundaries and for inter-disciplinary working:-

* rapid economic and social change
* increasing business complexity
* economic deregulation
* emergence of global economic networks
* proliferation of knowledge/information
* proliferation of networked information technology

Such conditions are giving rise to more external and internal, inter-dependent forms of organising:-

* strategic alliances
* value chain management
* partnering
* fast change management
* knowledge management
* organisational learning
* cross-cultural project teams
* virtual project teams

Though the business case for such forms of organising is increasingly compelling, the local and international experience of those engaging with the practicalities often points to serious dissatisfactions and unmet expectations. Our research so far suggests that many projects underestimate the importance of difference (local knowledge in communities of practice). Further, it also suggests that forms of leadership, managing and learning which attempt to minimise the thoroughgoing reality of inter-dependency and diversity are unlikely to deliver our joint and several expectations. In short methods of managing and organising which rely on the need for unitary 'vision' and control are increasingly not up to the task.

These forms of organising reflect conditions in which the power to get things done, knowledge, custom and practice, and often purpose, are distributed across traditional organisational and business boundaries. Work carried out so far has uncovered some promising responses to these conditions - both in face to face and 'on-line' settings - enabling groups and individuals to collaborate even though such differences occur. Our work represents a shift from attempting to define the 'world as it really is' (which necessarily pathologises all those who don't share a particular view/way of thinking - and hence curtails conversations - 'monologue') to creating the space where many conversations can be had for the purpose of doing things together ('dialogue'). These are 'Working Conversations'.

"Working conversations"

[The theoretical background for this work comes from social constructionism, critical linguistics, pragmatics, semiotics, discursive psychology and critical theory. The outcomes are very simple - but not necessarily easy.]

We "interfere" with the usual discourse conventions of particular conversational patterns (for example, whose turn it is and how that is constructed and enacted) by imposing temporary conversational rules which give space for more stories and more conversations to take place in the room.

This conversation uses the "function of language" to bring out some of the tacit stuff of getting things done. The function of our utterances is to do with what we want to achieve and how we want it to happen. People often think that language is simply data- a transparent window to "the world out there" which is fundamentally the same for everyone. From our perspective it is much more than that. We say it constitutes (not only reflects) what we can do. Put simply, there are many functions to every utterance.

Here's the example we often use:-

Two people in different rooms of the same house and the phone rings.....

Person A: "That's the phone."
[which, in the contexts of past yet ongoing conversations, makes available 3 strands of meaning/function] so,

1. data

2. and I want you to answer it

3. I'm the person around here who makes those sorts of decisions, and you're the sort of person who does what I want.

Person B: "I'm in the bath."

so

1. data

2. You'll have to get it yourself

3. You're not bossing me about.

Every utterance, in every conversation takes place at these different levels and hence structures relationships between people.

However, from the perspective we draw upon, such relational positions do not simply alter what can be said in particular situations about the world 'as it really is' - that is, superficial differences on top of more or less universal knowledge (thought precedes language). Rather such power relations constitute, through public and private conversations, anything that can be said about the world - i.e. construct the very stuff of knowing - 'knowledge' of the world (language precedes thought). What we can know about the world is governed by those with the power to control the rules (author-ity) of conversation (discourse & grammar - themes and the ways they can be talked about).

[This way of looking at things is reasonably accessible when one considers how power relations establish conversational rules in, say, a traditional, formal educational context: Teachers/educationalists design the curriculum content - themes, what can be talked about; they determine how they can be talked about - good/bad work, good/bad students, measurement against correct/model narratives (exams, quantitative assessment); they use sanctions if themes are not talked about correctly (remind people of the rules); they have the last word (i.e. control the rule making), etc., etc.,. So it is with the power relations in conversations within organisations and between them -
indeed within and between all communities of practice - e.g. family, nation, Faith, gender, this or that interest group etc., etc..]

All communications are understood as utterances within a number of conversational themes and in every day usage this sort of information is known and yet not known - it is part of the "tacit" data which shapes what can and can't happen. And as all action is structured through conversation, doing things differently resides in what we say.

The temporary rules of the "working conversations" makes some of these other levels of meaning available for the group to make sense of. It permits more to be said and heard than our habitual patterns of conversation which usually rely on the assumption that the power to decide about action is unitary. (formal patterns in command and control, and hidden power in hearts and minds.)

The rules are presented and carried out in terms of their pragmatics, not their ideological content. It gives us a way of getting more data in the room for us to act upon together. The conversation can then be about what we are going to make happen, rather than who is the one to make something happen (those who, through their social positioning and use of language determine what is legitimate).

The view of language embedded in the 'modernist' tradition - i.e. that it represents something true about the way the world really is, - presents the requirement that people have to see things in more or less the same way before they can get on and do things together. This produces considerable problems for work communities that need to work across conventional boundaries to get things done. From this reference point organisations tend to devote increasing energy (and cost) to getting people 'aligned', 'on board', to 'buy-in' etc., with increasingly sophisticated linguistic devices such as 'mission-vision-empowerment', 'change management', 'enabling', 'cultural change' programs etc.. Difference although often tolerated at first, is seen as an unhelpful deviation from the norm - or worse. Other people become the focus and cause of 'the problem'. However where knowledge, purpose, ownership, value and particularly power, is distributed across business/economic networks, as illustrated by the new forms of organising referred to on page 1, these strategies are increasingly unworkable, even irrational.

In contrast, a postmodern view of language - i.e. that it constitutes how we see the world and ourselves, that what we can do together is created in talk, in conversation - gives rise to new ways of doing things together even though, perhaps because, we are different. By privileging the 'performative' function of language - 'what it enables us to do' - 'problems' reside in conversations (or the lack of them) rather than in other people. Where power, knowledge, purpose and value are distributed we are better off if we privilege public conversations which enable us to do things together rather than focusing on those which try to prove one or other view is more true or more 'normal'.

This frames why we avoid trying to tell people that doing things this way is a good idea for them and instead focus on the context and the task. This is an emerging understanding, but we are beginning to make sense of interventions in an organisation (consultancy, plans, some training, self-development etc.) in terms of the conversation they are uttered and understood within. When we re-view organisational activities like 'consultancy' or 'personal development' or 'cultural change' programmes as performative speech acts, then they can be reframed as actions which take place in lieu of a direct conversation. Rather than monolithic statements of truth they are one side of a conversation to which potential respondents ascribe meaning from their own domain.

Telling people they're getting it wrong by imposing some form of plan is an utterance (That's the phone) and, rather than achieving support they often elicit a response at the level of resisting the social position that utterance places them in. (I'm in the bath). 'Working Conversations' provides a temporary space, with different, pragmatic rules to establish the conversations which need to take place to get things done.
Where to use this approach.

where:-

* work activities are complex and require the input from different stakeholders

* know-how is distributed across different communities or work groups (often with different interest)

* value is distributed - e.g. value chains, partnerships

* power and control is distributed across the communities (no single individual or group can control the outcomes)

* there are differences of 'culture' or 'custom and practice'

* it is important to surface tacit 'politics' or 'ethics' which structure work in the background

* change or breakthroughs or new ways of working are required quickly

* work is distributed via electronic networking and information structures

* collaboration across conventional organisation or institutional boundaries is required.

* (collective) organisational learning is an ambition

* knowledge management is critical

* IT systems are under-utilised or fail to enhance working practice

'Working Conversations' differs from other traditional meetings in that it does not require 'consensus' before people can get on and do things together. Rather than spending organisational energy on soul-searching, fixing folk, assuming what/how they need to learn or forcing consensus, this pragmatic way of working moves people towards 'what we can do together right now' - whilst acknowledging difference as a simple reality.

These intensive meetings, normally 1.5-2 days in length (depending on the numbers of people involved), are designed as real working days. That is the work we would normally do in our different offices, work sites, on visits, in meetings is brought into a single arena. Focusing on mutually compelling work tasks, they are specifically for managing and organising work in 'distributed communities'. Different (innovative) work practices often emerge and their necessary conversational architectures can be supported through the congruent use of networked information technology.

Note:

Our research and practice development shows that 'interfering with traditional organisational conversations' is a tough task and needs careful, reflexive management. For this reason we would always recommend that 'meetings' are managed by two people.

Where 'Working Conversations' is being used

* Seeboard PLC

* Rolls Royce Aerospace Group

* Rolls Royce & Associates/Ministry of Defence

* Metropolitan Police

* AT Kearney

* EDS

* Devon County Council

* Humberside TEC

* Lincoln TEC

* Thanet Health Trust

* General Motors

[We can say more about the conditions and context of each intervention on request]

If you have any queries, or would like to discuss things further, please call:-

Chris Blantern - Tel +44 (0)114 255 7750, Email chris@ meta1.demon.co.uk
Anne Murphy - Tel +44 (0)114 266 3826, Email anne@oyon.demon.co.uk

'Working Conversations' - Management Principles

[this is where the graphics should be!]