Gallos' Reframing Complexity -- Instructor's Comments

-->

According to theorist Joan Gallos, all theories, regardless of their focus, present two challenges:

1.     choosing the appropriate theoretical approach to apply to a specific situation;

2.     avoiding narrow or overly simplistic interpretations of complex organizational processes (i.e., narrowing the focus of your analysis before the entire situation has been considered).

The theoretical approach Gallos developed is called “Reframing” because it was developed in an attempt to avoid the myopic view that can naturally develop from the application of any single theory.  In addition, it provides a practical diagnostic form which can be used by an OD practitioner to categorize aspects of any organizational problem which is uncovered.

In any typical organizational analysis, aspects of situations and problems that are uncovered are multifaceted.  In addition, during the course of interviewing and evaluating data to get to the heart of the initial challenge, unrelated issues are often uncovered which need to be addressed by the organization at some point, even though they may not be part of the focus of the investigation.  The approach she developed helps to record and categorize every pertinent issue which is uncovered.

She describes Reframing as “the practice of deliberately and systematically examining a complex situation from multiple perspectives.”  This requires an understanding of the components of each frame and practice in applying each of them in an organizational environment.

Any “narrowing” of focus too soon can completely miss the target.  If the symptoms of an issue, potential problem or opportunity are not analyzed and evaluated completely, the focus of any applied response may be completely off target as well.

The example offered on p349 of the Gallos text details a common situation between two coworkers and their verbal battles at work.  This is a good way to illustrate the difference between inappropriately jumping to conclusions about what the root of problem is versus viewing the situation from each frame to see what could be the essence of the problem.   The danger in narrowing one’s focus too soon is that the recommendations and any changes that result may not solve the existing problem at all.

When we address a situation like this, our tendency is to default to the HR frame to view this situation.  When we jump to this conclusion, it often unwisely becomes more about finding the one(s) to blame, train, reposition or fire.   The problem with this working bias is obvious—this often does nothing to fix the situation and the impact on the people involved is significant.

The essence of Reframing holds us accountable to ask, “what else could the verbal disputes be due to?”

From the Structural frame we determine that it could be due to overlapping job responsibilities.  This situation is fairly straightforward to address.  It may mean rewriting job descriptions; clarifying job duties and eliminating any overlap, etc.

It could be Political, rooted in favoritism shown to one of the employees by a clueless boss who has unknowingly created a competitive work environment where the powerless grasp at any small share of he turf. If this is the case, the problem that needs to be addressed is with the manager.

The final possibility is Symbolic.  It could be culturally acceptable to spar with one another (as it is in the culture of some families, groups of friends, etc.).  The Symbolic frame focuses on the meaning of organizational events to insiders and suggests ways to support the development of a healthy organizational culture. 

Although any of the frames may account for what’s happening among those two coworkers, it is hard to know which one really does without first looking at them all.  Any one frame may oversimplify a complex reality or send us blindly down the wrong path, squandering resources, time, and the change agent’s credibility along the way.                                                                                                 (Gallos, p351)

A comprehensive diagnoses is launched with the following questions:

Ø  What is going on Structurally? 

Ø  What is happening from a Human Resources perspective? 

Ø  What is going on Politically? 

Ø  What is happening in the culture (Symbolically)?

The author states, “Without a larger integrating framework for both diagnosis and intervention, OD risks becoming a series of incomplete or disconnected practices.” (Gallos, p357)

Each frame has “tensions” that need to be watched. We all have political leanings, values and biases that will tend to send us to one end of the continuum or the other.  These competing forces must be balanced as Organizational Development professionals work with decision makers within an organization.  We need to watch our own tendencies to jump to conclusion and lead others down that path. 

In summary, each of the four frames suggests an area of specialized attention and intervention for OD professionals.  Natural specialization in this industry tends to develop as people move into the OD consultant role from other areas of focus (e.g., being promoted into OD from an HR Generalist position brings a natural predilection favoring the HR frame and an understanding of the central tensions that are prevalent in it).  The advantages of specialization are that change agents can know more about a selected area, develop stronger skills in facilitating frame-related processes and diagnoses, and reflect their own values and talents.  Although specialization may be natural, Organizational Development exists to broaden the view of an integrated, multifaceted organization, which often suggests the need for dynamic, comprehensive interventions.

Bottom line:  Each of the 4 frames has its own purposefully limited view of the organization.  For this reason, you must use all four frames or none.   Remember that organizations are complex, functioning in all of these frames at once. 

To better understand the perspective inherent within each frame, take careful note of Figure 16.1, pages 347-348, especially focusing on the underlying assumptions that are often part of each frame.

Table 16.2, page 352, has been converted to a diagnostic form which is available for you to download under Section I.  Not only will it be helpful to you as you review the assigned case study, Computer Services at Avionics, but I encourage you to keep a copy to utilize later in your work as an OD Practitioner.

Teaming with you,

Diane Waisner

Welcome to Organizational Psychology & Behavior

Any blended course requires some tweaking from time to time and this one is no different.  Changes are to be expected throughout our short 8 weeks together.  I'm excited about the flexibility of teaching a subject I'm familiar with both the personal touch of face-to-face interaction and the convenience of new online tools.  It appears to be the best of both worlds educationally.  Among other things, electronic mediums applied in academic settings offer incredible flexibility related to integration with your existing schedule, vast improvement in audio/visual support, connection to the class from almost everywhere and timely communication between instructor and student.  In a blended setting, however, neither of us will lose the personal touch.  We can still get to know one another in our traditional class scheduled dates as well.  There is nothing to complain about in this list; this plan is all very good!

Regardless of what you perceive about your own academic success thus far, each successive course, whether online or traditional, brings renewed challenges inherent in new expectations. As long as these are clearly expressed to you, you will know where to devote your attention.  Thus, this blended method of learning enhances the need for very effective two-way communication.  

There are many ways to ensure that this happens in a timely way. During our face-to-face class time, I will reach farther ahead when explaining upcoming assignments, etc., so that you will have an opportunity to ask questions and receive clarification in person, while it is easiest to communicate.  My contact information is included on the course site.  Please feel free to contact me personally when you have questions but only after you have been unsuccessful finding the answer in the information that has already been provided to you, both in the module and on the course site. When I receive several questions from different students with virtually the same theme, I will communicate the answer "globally" to all of you via a new post or tweet, depending upon the complexity required.  E-mail is the easiest way to get in touch with me.  I check it daily and will respond to you ASAP.

Some of you are versed in the rigors of online learning but others may be trying this out for the first time.  I speak to both of you when I recognize that there are some additional challenges related to it for all of us.  Once again, meeting in person for the predominance of our 8-week session will help lessen this confusion.  

Some students naturally like to be provided with more detail before they feel comfortable beginning a task.  Others don't feel the need for as much detailed instruction. This can be due to differences in levels of school experience, as well as differing personality styles.  In explaining assignments, you will find that my instructions are most often tailored toward the students who wants additional instruction.  I always attempt to communicate more rather than less.  If, however, anything in my instructions is unclear or incomplete, feel free to contact me and I'll be happy to clarify the issue for you. 

In addition, you may have a question, observation or suggestion about the content of this class or mode of communication.  If so, I want to hear from you.  Every attempt will be made to continue to improve the blended way this class functions. 


As I receive questions from students pertaining to the content or requests for clarification I will most likely respond back to you in the medium you used to communicate with me. Personal questions will be handled as such but if the same general question is received from more than one person, I may choose to send out a response to the entire class via Twitter (if it is short, of course), a new blog or course announcement.  During the weeks we are online only, please check the class site several times each day for new posts.  This is very important.  Asking forgiveness for missing an important date change or a communication I send out that is fundamental to an assignment when it was readily available to you simply won't work to remove the penalty in most cases.

To those of you who are new to this varied form of learning let me say that it does require some additional patience at times but it can be a very convenient form of education, melding easily into your existing schedule.  I caution you, however, not to take this flexibility for granted.  Allocate plenty of time to accomplish the required activities when we don't meet face to face.  It is easy to put off what must be done when there is no class time to report to.  The deadlines provided for each online activity are as inflexible as they are when we meet traditionally.


If you haven't done so already, join Twitter.  This will help to keep you and I connected.  I will use it primarily to point you to information that I have changed or reposted and I will often remind you of deadlines you might miss otherwise.


This is going to be a very beneficial eight weeks.   I expect that each of you will exercise patience and professionalism in working with each other and (especially) with me.   I'm here to help you achieve your academic goals so let me know how I can assist you.  My contact information is listed on our course home page.


Anticipating your success,
Diane Waisner