Schmid isb-handbook

Creating Shared Realities
1. Auflage 2021
ISBN: 978-3-347-28427-2
Verlag: tredition
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 184 Seiten

Reihe: tredition GmbH

Systemic professionalism

Dr. phil. Bernd Schmid (Jhg. 1946) ist Gru?nder und Leitfigur der isb GmbH Wiesloch (seit 1984) und der Schmid Stiftung (seit 2011). Er war international tätig als Referent, Lern- und Professionskulturentwickler sowie als Unternehmer und Gru?nder von Initiativen und Verbänden. Seine Expertise in der Organisationsentwicklung und im Coaching stellt er heute als Mentor und Konzeptentwickler an der Schnittstelle von Profit- und Nonprofit-Unternehmertum bereit. Schmid ist unter anderem Ehrenmitglied der Systemischen Gesellschaft und Ehrenvorsitzender im Präsidium des Deut-schen Bundesverbandes Coaching. Er ist Preisträger des Eric Berne Memorial Awards 2007 der Internationalen TA-Gesellschaft ITAA, des Wissenschaftspreises 1988 der Europäischen TA-Gesellschaft EATA sowie des Life Achievement Awards 2014 der Weiterbildungsbranche. 2017 ehrte ihn die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Transaktionsanalyse DGTA für sein Lebenswerk.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Schmid, Bernd

Leseproben

1. Sharing reality

Why sharing reality?

An organization is a mix of multiple realities functioning together to achieve results. These realities can either be cohesive or fragmented. If realities are not in sync, energy in an organization will be drained and there will be a waste of time, money, productivity and human energy. This is why sharing realities as a perspective matters for all areas in organizations. Looking at structures, processes, approaches, models and methods, there is always the one urgent question: is it contributing to a shared reality? Shared reality does not mean that everybody agrees on a certain point of view, nor do we want to reduce enriching variety. It simply means that we mutually understand as much of our realities as we possibly can. It means that we are able to effectively relate to each other and to join each other’s realities in a way that makes organizational life and performance possible, effective and satisfying.

1.1. What is Reality?

From a systemic point of view, reality can only be grasped, if we understand whose reality is meant. Individuals and groups live in their own cosmos, with their own mix of habits of perceiving, varying experience in biography, interests, competences, responsibilities and roles in society. Although reality may include “hard facts”, it is still a narrative. And many “hard facts” derive from ideas about reality having created their own reality in return. This is why in principle such realties should be open to change, provided that new ideas are created and realized in a shared process.

1.2. Creating reality by communication

A reality, which is not shared, can cause a lot of malfunctioning and dissatisfaction. Therefore, we must obviously be heading for better sharing wherever improving co-operation is intended. Simply stating individual reality as a valid and obligatory frame for everybody is usually not enough. It takes more to achieve active and creative co-operation. It requires communication on reality with those who have to be reached as cocreators of reality. This is exactly why a culture of communication and competence in dialogue on sharing reality is an art and a responsibility of its own importance. This goes far beyond simply improving one’s ability of listening and selfexpression. In the organizational field, we need models and approaches allowing specifications and combinations of sharing in many dimensions of role requirements and personal issues. The systemic communication approaches for the organizational field, which have been developed, practiced and taught at isb for decades exactly fit that challenge. They picture the isb cosmos of understanding professions and organizations as a systemic artwork of communication and culture.

1.3. Communication as cultural encounter

Let us start with a communication model focusing specifically on the encounter of different realities, serving us as an alternative to the traditional Shannon Weaver “sender-channel-receiver model” of communication (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: traditional sender-channel-receiver communication model

The sender-channel-receiver model represents the traditional technical idea of a “controlled” perspective on communication. It is to be expected that the reality of sender A when sent through the communication channel turns identically to the reality of receiver B. If transferred, it suggests that also human communication functions in a controllable way. If the receiver's reality doesn’t respond in the expected way, someone has a problem. From this perspective, those creative aspects arising out of the communicators’ cultural background that change the effect intended are not accepted. The communication partners are expected to keep such creative extensions as misfunction out of communication.

By contrast, the cultural encounter model of communication (Fig. 3) assumes that each communication partner has their own reality and uses the encounter to promote personal realities and developments. This model considers it as normal that these realities differ, and need to be connected if something like a shared reality is supposed to ensue. The creation of shared reality requires a necessary effort in communication and a specific competence. The cultural encounter model of communication gives up the idea of controlled communication, as the realities of living organisms are complex leaving them unable to even control it themselves. Everybody has to acknowledge that there will be surprises. Starting from this perspective alters both the way we deal with unexpected results of communication and how we go about connecting with each other.

Fig. 3: Cultural encounter model of communication (Schmid 1991)

1.4. Four levels of shared reality

Here a brief introduction of the systemic term “information” as it is an important basis for the following cultural encounter model of communication.

Information:

From a systemic perspective, data and information are two different things. Data refers to facts of any kind. However, only those facts that make a difference to someone result in information. Look at this example: “It is raining” is a statement.

Let us put this into the context of hiking. If we do not go hiking on a rainy day, the difference between “raining” and “not raining” becomes relevant information with regard to hiking. If we do go hiking on a rainy day as well, “raining” has no information value for the decision of whether we go hiking or not, but it might have for the question of whether to “bring an umbrella” or “not bring an umbrella”.

Thus, for communication to be successful, a shared frame of reference, i.e. a shared framework for the confrontation of realities needs to be established. For this purpose, we distinguish between four levels of a shared reality.

Fig. 4:4 Levels in creating a shared reality (Schmid/Hipp 1998)

Let us continue the example above. Although hiking was previously agreed, B doesn’t show up. When confronted, B replies: “I was assuming we could not possibly go hiking together while it is raining!”

Level 1: Perspectives and Data

Are A and B referring to the same data? Do they both know the factual situation to which the other is referring by the sentence “It is raining”? Or would B say so when it is cloudy, whereas A would only do so if it’s raining cats and dogs? Let’s assume both would agree on using the sentence whenever there is some rain.

Level 2: Meanings and relevance

Do participants attribute the same meanings to existing data? Do A and B share the same dimensions and directions of relevance? Or do they draw different conclusions? “Rain can lead to sickness and not acceptable risks for individual and the enterprise” vs. “Rain doesn’t create risks, only acceptable individual discomfort”.

Level 3: Interdependencies and interaction

What conclusions can be derived from the frame of reference and the interrelations between different elements? Do A and B share imaginations of the means by which the desired realities can be created or changed? Or do they differ like “coping with rain is a question of equipment” vs. “…a question of personal fitness”?

Level 4: Responsibilities and achievements

“The group leader is in charge of precautions for possible dangers, checking everybody’s fitness and providing equipment. If he considers these not sufficient, he has to refuse participation.”

In many cases where fairly reliable agreements on the level of achievements and responsibilities are reached, shared reality on the other levels is easily assumed. But hidden disagreements on levels 1-3 can lead to non-complementary actions at any time. If shared reality is to be ensured and hidden dissent is detected, all levels of reality encounter need to be checked. Conflicts often escalate on level 4, simply because the checking of all other levels of constructing reality has been neglected. A step-by-step clarification may help to improve mutual understanding to de-escalate conflicts.

Do participants share ideas of what might be acceptable solutions to open questions? Do A and B share ideas about their responsibility for these solutions? “Everybody is responsible for their own fitness as well as bringing equipment and for bearing the consequences in case of getting in trouble” vs.

Confrontation

We mostly associate the term ‘confrontation’ with conflict and quarrel. However, from a more neutral perspective, the term simply refers to the encounter of different realities. Confrontation, based on mutual respect, can be of great advantage for the systems involved, enabling them to constructively deal with differences, and thus contributing to sharing realities and community building. But even “positive” attempts frequently fail, especially if the respective communicative task is underestimated and if the culture of positive confrontation is underdeveloped. The purpose of confrontation is...