TITLE: Conversations of Mutual Understanding: Deconstructing Silos By Visually

Representing Organizational Processes

Book Section: Appreciative Inquiry –or– Ethics and Emotional Intelligence

Single Author: Michael Y. Moon, Ph.D., M.B.A.

Assistant Professor, Department of Public Affairs and Administration

California State University, East Bay
25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard, MI 4127
Hayward, California 94542

michael.moon@csueastbay.edu
 TITLE: Conversations of Mutual Understanding: Deconstructing Silos By Visually

Representing Organizational Processes

1. INTRODUCTION

In this exercise, participants draw diagrams of an organizational process, creating

the basis for dialogical collaboration around diverse departmental or functional

perspectives and their narratives. Creating visual representations of organizational

processes can be stimulating and fun, but how serious is it from a learning standpoint?

Visually representing organizational processes is an extension of using metaphor

to teach organization theory. Tom Taber (2007) describes three uses of metaphor in

teaching organization theory: giving meaning to unfamiliar concepts, bringing mental

models to light, and appreciating a variety of viewpoints (pp. 542-544). The exercise of

visually representing organizational processes, described in this chapter, draws upon

these three uses of metaphor because the diagrams are visual metaphors. That is, the

visual representations draw parallels between organizational processes and the diagrams

through the translation and non-literal rendition of participants' conceptual understanding

of how the organization seems to work. Sackmann (1989) defines metaphor as “a figure

of speech in which a term or phrase with a literal meaning is applied to a different context

in order to suggest a resemblance ... The figurative comparison provides additional

information about the structure, content, and meaning of the particular situation” (p. 465).

If we are to replace Sackmann’s use of “figure of speech in which a term or phrase with a

literal meaning” with “visual representation,” the diagram becomes the “figurative

Deleted: 12

Page 2 of 12
comparison” that can help participants glean additional information about organizational

processes.

Two ways that visually representing organizational processes may enhance

understanding of theory beyond the use of linguistic metaphors are: 1) the explicit

consideration of multiple dimensions of organizational processes and how to represent it

and 2) introducing a non- linguistic mode of learning. An additional benefit of visual

representations is having concrete starting points – that is, diagrams with at-a-glance

renditions – from which participants may engage in side-by-side comparisons and discuss

their perspectives with each other.

The first enhancement to the use of literary metaphors that visually representing

organizational processes provides is the explicit consideration of multiple dimensions. As

participants conceptualize a certain aspect of an organization's processes that they wish to

convey through diagrams, they must also consider issues inherent in drawing pictures.

Such issues include spatial relationships, time elements, and symbolic versus literal

representations. This active consideration and engagement with various elements of

organizational processes when translating one’s understanding into diagrams is likely to

enhance the development of insights and learning (Cross, 1986).

The second enhancement to the use of literary metaphors is the use of non-

linguistic modes of learning. Taber (2007) considers the proposition that much of human

thought is image based instead of language based (Pinker, 1994) as a rationale for his use

of metaphor to teach organization theory. Regardless of what one thinks about that

proposition, because individuals have different preferred modes of learning (Riding &

Sadler-Smith, 1997) with the visual non-linguistic as a primary mode (Plass, Chun,

Deleted: 12

Page 3 of 12
Mayer, & Leutner, 1998), providing the option for participants to add a visual

representational aspect to their demonstrated understanding of an organization's processes

will likely also enhance insight and learning.

In this exercise, participants' diagrams serve as concrete starting points from

which they may compare and discuss their perspectives with others. The vividness and

immediacy of diagrams serve as compelling points for joining in conversation. Because

the content or import of many visual representations can be largely ascertained at-a-

glance, the diagrams provide quick and powerful demonstrations of differing emphases

on various dimensions of an organization's processes. Dialogue among participants may

focus on their respective diagrammed perspectives, allowing a potentially important

degree of removal from the tendency to personalize perspectives.

2. PURPOSE AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THE EXERCISE

This exercise is meant to serve as a tool to facilitate cross-functional dialogue

about the content of an organization's processes. This tool has been designed to establish

a starting point for dialogue among participants. It is important to make clear: the

diagrams are not meant to replace constructive and mutually respectful interactions.

Rather, catalyzing conversations about organizational processes through the use of the

diagrams will help jumpstart cross-functional dialogue with a focus on participants' work.

The primary outcome of the exercise is to create a model for understanding diverse

stakeholders' narratives about organizational processes. Participants can use the notion of

visually representing different perspectives itself as a metaphor of organizational

polyphony (Hazen, 1993). The recognition of the diversity of narratives creates a

Deleted: 12

Page 4 of 12
countervailing tension to the natural tendency towards organizational departmental or

functional silos. The accommodation of alternative narratives increases the capacity and

willingness to engage in collaborative dialogue and sensemaking.

3. BEST SETTING FOR THE EXERCISE AND WHY

The best setting for the exercise is a breakout room in which individuals from

different departments/functions are gathered. The participants of this exercise will

appreciate a space free of distraction and the opportunity to interact with others who

represent contrasting viewpoints. The exercise works best for groups of 4-7 people. The

entire exercise may require 2-3 hours. Tables that can accommodate these groups of 4-7

individuals will be helpful for some of the exercise tasks. Theoretically, as few as two

participants could benefit from a discussion emerging from this exercise. However, the

richness of dialogue will depend on the diversity of represented vantage points, as well as

the degree of functional expertise of each participant. On the other end of the group size

spectrum, discussions may become too unwieldy with more than 10-12 participants.

Materials include paper and transparencies of the same size, and pens with which to draw

on the paper and transparencies.

4. POINTS OF ATTENTION OR CAUTION TO THE AUDIENCE

Because the exercise requires each participant to draw an informed diagram of

organizational process, it may be helpful to involve individuals who are conversant with

broad organizational processes. The exercise may be successful without individuals who

understand these broad processes, but the resulting dialogue may be relatively superficial.

Deleted: 12

Page 5 of 12
It is not necessary to involve individuals who are subject matter experts, but some level

of competency in and understanding of their respective functions will allow them to serve

effectively as representatives of their department/function's perspectives. Finally, if the

organization hosting this exercise has a history of contentious conflict between

represented departments/functions, it may be best to involve an experienced facilitator.

Setting ground rules of engagement when individuals share their visual representations

will also be helpful in such contexts.

5. THE EXERCISE

1. As a group, draw a diagram on paper of a basic end-to-end process of an organization

Deleted: touches on
that you know well. Use arrows and other figures to show how the process passes through
Deleted: phases
different events and different people in the organization. Focus on the process and try to Deleted: /or
Deleted: groups
make this diagram as department/function agnostic as possible. You will have plenty of Deleted: T

chances to have your say from your departmental/functional perspectives later. This

means you will simply draw who does what in chronological sequence across the

organization for that process. An ‘event’ can be a decision, meetings of stakeholders,

activities, data gathering, or the addition or subtraction of individuals in the process. Each

event is any occurrence that contributes to the movement of the process from start to

finish. An example of a diagram may be the start-to-finish process of a recent

reconfiguration of office space in the headquarters building. Or it could be the process to

modify an existing product or service that will have impact on various internal and

external stakeholders of your organization. It is best to diagram a process that involves

many different departments/functions and has been the basis of controversy within the

Deleted: 12

Page 6 of 12
organization. If you need to refer to a department, label it as “Person(s) A in

[department]”. Leave as much space as possible between events because you will be

writing between them later.

2. Each participant lays a transparency on top of this diagram and traces the basic

structure (e.g., arrows, figures, and phase descriptions) of the process on their

transparency.

3. Working individually, each participant annotates their transparency with notes that

represent their departmental/functional perspective on the different parts of the diagram.

First, each participant writes down in the upper left corner of the transparency the main

concerns and challenges their department/function experiences or foresees in the

diagrammed process. Next, for each part of the diagrammed process, each participant

writes down concerns, questions, and areas of support from their perspective next to each

corresponding part of the process. Feel free to mark up your transparency however you

feel inclined! The following considerations may be used as topics for the annotations,

however you may decide to use your own criteria for assessing the organizational process

and its phases based on the interests and functional responsibilities of your

department/function:

a. Are there concerns about the organizational process that lead your

department/function to object to the process overall? Is there something about the

process that makes it a 'deal killer'? What?

Deleted: 12

Page 7 of 12
 b. Specifically what about each part of the process might your department/function
Deleted:
consider problematic?

c. Based on the interests and functional responsibilities of your department/function,

what changes would you recommend for the process? Why?

d. Are there aspects of the process that your department/function supports or even

advocates? What and why?

4. If the group is missing an important or notable stakeholder perspective, work

collectively to develop a separate annotated transparency for that perspective.

5. Place all of the transparencies side-by-side on the table and share non-judgmental

observations with each other. Note the similarities and differences. Ask clarifying

questions if necessary, again without judgment; this step is simply for data gathering and

noticing how the different perspectives play out in the diagrams.

6. Next, as a group, begin discussing the process phase-by-phase, acknowledging the

various positive and negative annotations associated with each progressive phase.

Approach this step as an opportunity to look beyond traditional organizational silos as

root causes of controversy and, in dialogue with your counterparts from those silos, to

jointly explore organizational process as inherently complex and dynamic. In a sense,

each transparency represents a distinct narrative about the process. The purpose of

drawing each perspective on a transparency is both practical and symbolic. It allows

different narratives to be overlayed on each other to see the narrative threads weave their

Deleted: 12

Page 8 of 12
perspectives through the process -- both together and separately. Of course, some

transparencies may be too dense with annotations for this to be useful, but the clear

medium of the transparency makes this possibility obvious. Symbolically, the

transparency's clearness reduces any single narrative's primacy or power to silence others;

for the purposes of this exercise, visual transparency symbolically evokes narrative

plurality. This and the prior step of the exercise create a basis for literally seeing and

talking through the longitudinal coherence of each narrative (each transparency) and the

complexity of organization (discussion of the process, phase-by-phase across narratives).

7. This next step is focused on broader understanding through reconciliation and

multinarrative accommodation and integration. These processes have probably already

begun in previous steps, but they are the focus of this step. Revisit the lists of main

concerns and challenges written in the upper left-hand corner of each transparency. As a

group, discuss each item in relation to the previous phase-by-phase discussion about the

process. This exercise won't necessarily change each item, but it might allow a reframing

of the underlying premises. For example, a department's listed primary concern may have

originally been based on the perception that others' reluctance to support the

organizational process was based on general mistrust of that department and doubts about

the process's value to the organization. However, what might arise as a result of the

attention paid to each department's narrative is that the reluctance is actually based on

communication gaps and missed opportunities to voice and listen to each others'

perspectives. This is a common challenge in organizations. The somewhat structured

dialogue and chances for listening designed in this exercise allow the group to set aside

Deleted: 12

Page 9 of 12
tacit agreements in the organization about narrative silos. What hopefully emerges is a

process of cross-silo reconciliation and accommodation for more broadly integrated

departmental/functional narratives.

8. Finally, as a group, rewrite the lists of concerns and challenges that were discussed in

the previous step on the original piece of paper. The objectives for this step are that the

list can be combined into a collective set of concerns and challenges and that the list is

shorter than the sum of the original number of items. You may find many common items

across the transparencies that can be collectively listed on the paper. And you may also

find new items to list as a result of the multinarrative dialogue about the organizational

process. This is a shared, collectively constructed list of concerns and challenges. Full

agreement is not necessary on every item, but the understanding that diverse perspectives

naturally emerge in organizations and more empathetic tolerance for such diversity will

hopefully allow overall agreement about how the shared list is one attempt to represent

the organizational-process-as-a-whole. At least to a degree and hopefully as the

beginning of a continuing process of dialogue, the effect of organizational silos has been

deconstructed.

6. DEBRIEFING QUESTIONS

A. What insights emerged for you through this exercise? Why do you think they

emerged?

B. How might this sort of cross-silo dialogue be integrated in how the

organization ‘does business’ from now on? How might you take responsibility for

Deleted: 12

Page 10 of 12
yourself as a cross-silo dialogue starter? What obstacles might arise and how may they be

addressed?

C. For this approach of ‘deconstructing silos’, do you think the key is the process

itself or arriving at a result or both? (Hint: It’s both. Why?)

Deleted: 6
7. FINAL COMMENTS

Constructing and making sense of meaning in organizations is largely what

working in an organization demands of us. The egocentric tendency for individuals and

groups to adopt a world view that gives primacy to a single set of meanings, usually

theirs, is a natural one. However, cross-silo collaboration holds great potential to

reconstruct the organization that collectively shares and constructs meaning to work

effectively through problems, particularly systemic patterns (Senge, 1990). Through the

processes of appreciating polyphony, accommodating diversity, and critically considering

multiple perspectives, organizations value the contributions of those who allow its

members to make meaning effectively. My intention in designing this exercise is that

these illustrations be shared among participants for the purposes of expanding their

internal dialogues and encouraging stimulating and thought- provoking dialogues with

each other, actively and purposefully engaging in the polyphonic aspects of

organizations.

Deleted: 12

Page 11 of 12
 References

Cross, K. P. (1986). A proposal to improve teaching. American Association for Higher

Education Bulletin, 39, 9-15.

Hazen, M. A. (1993). Towards polyphonic organization. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 6(5), 15-26.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York,

NY: William Morrow & Co.

Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and

verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning

environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25-36.

Riding, R. J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). Cognitive style and learning strategies: Some

implications for training design. International Journal of Training and

Development, 1(3), 199-208.

Sackmann, S. (1989). The role of metaphors in organization transformation. Human

Relations, 42(6), 463-485.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan

Management Review, 32(1), 7-23.

Taber, T. D. (2007). Using metaphors to teach organization theory. Journal of

Management Education, 31(4), 541-554.

Deleted: 12

Page 12 of 12