Replying to LO27900 --
Hello Malcolm, fellow members,
Malcolm you said:
> I've been pondering this. It seems to me that all modern organizational
>interventions, such as the L-O approach, or the alternatives of the
>leaders above, seem almost always to display a version of the Hawthorne
>effect when first used in the real world. [snip]
My real world experiences tells me that this occurs. After all, the
resources and the attention is focussed on the intervention and the
Hawthorne effect must display itself. However it is difficult to sustain
an approach and the accompanying changes as a consequence until such time
that the changes are cemented into the minds and souls of "those that need
changing". You go on to say,
> That is, anecdotally there always seem to be stories of transformed
>relationships, new vision, dramatic improvements in efficiency or
>productivity, etc. These then become the stuff of case study "proofs" of
>the efficacy of the particular model.
And this is the substance of marketing in business per se.
Malcolm you also cite a couple of examples where "success stories" appear
in the promotional materials of the consultants. I have experienced
similar when the mere fact that a large company has used the consultant is
deemed noteworthy enough to include in promotional material. I accept
this as a part of the world of business.
You also say:
> Several explanations occur to me, chief among them that no single
>change/intervention model is actually sufficient to effect long-term
>change, so that "sequential" intervention using different models is
>necessary. As a long-time and committed practitioner of LO approaches,
>that leads me to ask,
then you ask:
> "What evidence is there that any particular approach, including LO,
>actually produces long-term results that are demonstrably better or
>longer-lasting than any other?"
I have no evidence of the worth of any approach and the organisation I
work for has tried so many. While we have made slow progress toward
efficiency and are surviving in the fiercely competitive steel industry, I
believe neither I, nor anyone else in the organisation can put a finger on
"the" intervention that helped us stay in business. Evidence that there
has been a definite change in the culture is strong. Managers who have
gone to higher levels in the company and who come back to visit us (years
later) tell us we have changed out of sight as do consultants who we have
used over a number of years, Du Pont for safety is an example and the
dramatic drop in our accident rate needs to be pointed out to some of us
as proof something has happened in the last six years. Perhaps we have
used so many interventionist to have a sufficiently long Hawthorne effect
to change us and I jest of course.
The point for me is that it is the change in people that changes groups of
people be they sports, work, religious etc etc, and in my organisation I
could describe the changes in several of my work colleagues. The changes
in them from my perspective have been positive and I believe the
collective result has been positive for the company. These changes have
sometimes been driven out of chaos (emmergences not immergences) like when
a survival plan had to be drawn up to convince top management that half
the plant should not be closed.
What I would like to be able to do Malcolm is to use a method like
Blanchards "Situational Leadership" or At De Lange's "7 Essentialities"
through which to retrospectively view our story. Looking at our story
within a context like this may give some clues as to what it is that moves
people sufficiently to have them drop the personal agenda for the
collective one then exist in and as a learning organisation rather than to
display the hallmarks of the Hawthorne effect.
Regards,
Dennis.
--"Dennis Rolleston" <dennisr@ps.gen.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.