A Critical Process For Methods Selection In Organizational Problem Solvi

1. INTRODUCTION

Human beings follow a pattern of behavior based on their knowledge. It is claimed that knowledge is necessarily derived from individual experience combined with social and cultural influences (e.g. Gregory, 1992), and this knowledge can be seen as a basis for the individual's value judgment. From Burrell and Morgan's (1979) point of view, individuals always hold a particular world view (a so-called 'paradigm'), according to which they perceive reality. This world view is derived from their learning experience and personal belief. Although an individual's world view might shift, he/she cannot hold two different world views at the same time. Thus, at a particular point in time, an individual can only interpret anything according to his/her current state of awareness. The question therefore arises, how can we escape from our own value assumptions (ideological traps) and sociocultural judgments? Moreover, what can we do to deal with different social judgments and individuals' personal assumptions, in order to handle social conflict?

Commonly, the people affected by decision to use particular methods are not involved in the intervention process. Those who are affected are often unable to tell the method-users which method they think will be suitable. This means that we should not predetermine what method will be applied without first understanding the current situation, especially who is included and excluded from the method choice procedure. Many critical systems thinkers (e.g. Ulrich, 1983; Midgley, 1992, 1997a) have already acknowledged this problem, as have the authors of Total Systems Intervention (Flood and Jackson, 1991; Flood, 1995).

This paper is concerned with the underlying assumptions made by method-users, candidate methods (expressed in the writing of their authors), and stakeholders in and beyond the organization. It argues that methods should not be classified into fixed categories. Instead, a method should be interpreted according to the current organizational context and method-users' assumptions. The process of interpretation should be critical, in that assumptions should be subject to review and, as far as possible, be made transparent to and open to change by, those who will be affected by intervention. The significant question that needs to be addressed is, who should be considered as stakeholders of a method evaluation process? Answering this question will indicate whose views (and associated ideologies) might need to be considered when it comes to applying the method for method evaluation. The stakeholder concept "enables an organization to identify all those other organizations and individuals who can be or are influenced by the strategies and policies of the focus organization." (Fill, 1995, p.23). This paper firstly discusses the nature of participation before identifying three groups (and sub-groups) of stakeholders who are involved in, or affected by, intervention, and so need to contribute their views about the candidate method. It then argues that the three (or more) perspectives on the candidate method that are provided by these stakeholders provide a more complete picture of the suitability of the candidate method than a method-user could generate without stakeholder participation.

Having reviewed some key assumptions concerning the need for ideology-critique, and the importance of considering the perspectives of the method-user, the candidate method and both organizational and environmental stakeholders, it is now possible to draw these assumptions together to create a new method for method evaluation. This is to be called Participative Method Evaluation (PME), and it provides a framework to review and evaluate the suitability of a candidate method for intervention in a particular social circumstance. PME provides a learning process which allows participants, and particularly method-users, to recognize and appreciate other world views.

This paper also aims to introduce the main ideas in PME, which is a method in the sense defined by Midgley (1995b, 1997b). Midgley clearly distinguishes between method and method, saying that the former means "a series of techniques applied to some end", while the latter is "a theory of research practice that explains why particular method(s) should or should not be considered valid or appropriate for given circumstances." A method is a set of underlying value-judgments which guide method-users to choose a set of methods to gain understanding and knowledge, or to solve social problems.

2. THE NATURE OF PARTICIPATION

Participation is an important issue in organizational problem solving because, as Churchman (1979) argues, the more perspectives that we brought to bear, the more comprehensive a view of the problem we have. There is an enormous literature on participation: e.g., Arnstein (1969), Oakley (1991) and Mumford (1993). They all emphasise different levels or types of participation. According to Arnstein (1969), there are three types of participation: citizen power, tokenism and non-participation. Arnstein's theory of participation shows that some levels of participation involve people participating in working procedures, but they are not invited to share ideas. People at these levels are seen merely as tools. However, Arnstein (1969) also realises that full participation that involves everyone is not always possible: representative participation is sometime necessary and more realistic. This will depend on practical circumstances and resources available to projects.

Oakley (1991) argues that one major form of differentiation is to distinguish between participation as a means or an end. Participation as a means is to use participation to achieve some predetermined goals or objects; participation as an end is, on contrary, a dynamic form of participation which enables people to play an increasing role in development activities. Oakley (1991) argues that participation improves development projects in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and self-reliance. In his view, participation in a development project means understanding what the affected people need rather than what the designer desires the project to be. Thus, participants need to share different values and find the solutions through the participation process. Mumford (1993) argues that a participative approach helps people to decide their own destinies and produce organizational commitments to avoid moral and job satisfaction problems. Mumford (1993) also indicates that traditional participation is concerned with decision making processes and the representation of different interests and points of view in this process.

Clearly, the aim of participation is to