1.
Footdown Copyright 2015 Mike Carter July 2015
Organisational Inquiry: General and Simple to Simple and Accurate
2.
Philosophy of Model Page 2 of 5
Footdown Ltd Copyright 2015 July 2015
Leaders Acknowledging Trade-Offs
Curious
leaders
want
to
know
what’s
going
on
in
their
organisations,
the
issues
that
might
be
impeding
high
performance
and
what
their
colleagues
are
really
thinking.
Curious
and
determined
leaders
make
it
their
business
to
find
out
the
answers
to
these
questions,
but
do
they
understand
or
acknowledge
the
inevitable
trade-‐offs
of
conducting
inquiry
and
determining
both
causality
and
solutions?
The
most
important
trade-‐off
in
determining
how
an
organisation
functions
is
the
difficulty
of
reconciling
the
relationship
between
behaviour
that
is
categorised
as
general,
accurate
and
simple,
i.e.
it
is
impossible
for
the
purpose
of
analysis
and
provision
of
solutions
to,
simultaneously,
encompass
all
three
dimensions.
The
more
general
a
simple
explanation
is,
for
example,
the
less
accurate
it
will
be
in
predicting
specifics.
The GAS Model
To
understand
the
implications
of
the
trade-‐off
between
general/simple/accurate
(as
outlined
by
Weick
in
1999)1
it
can
best
be
conceived
as
the
face
of
a
clock.
At
the
twelve
o’clock
is
the
word
general,
at
the
four
o’clock
is
accurate,
and
at
the
eight
o’clock
is
the
word
simple.
1
Karl
E.
Weick
(1999)
"Conclusion:
Theory
Construction
as
Disciplined
Reflexivity:
Tradeoffs
in
the
90s"
The
Academy
of
Management
Review,
Vol.
24,
No.
4
(Oct.,
1999),
pp.
797-‐806Karl
E.
Weick
(1999)
"Conclusion:
Theory
Construction
as
Disciplined
Reflexivity:
Tradeoffs
in
the
90s"
The
Academy
of
Management
Review,
Vol.
24,
No.
4
(Oct.,
1999),
pp.
797-‐806it
3.
Philosophy of Model Page 3 of 5
Footdown Ltd Copyright 2015 July 2015
The
working
mnemonic
device
to
store
away
these
observations
is
simply
the
word
GAS.
If
we
display
the
trade-‐off
across
the
clock
face,
we
can
see
the
dilemma
inherent
in
any
diagnostic
or
intervention
strategy.
If
you
try
to
secure
any
two
of
the
virtues
of
generality,
accuracy,
and
simplicity,
you
automatically
sacrifice
the
third
one.
For
example,
general/accurate
must
apply
to
a
defined
population
and
be
universally
applicable
within
that
population
so
it
is
very
difficult
to
apply
because
as
the
population
is
expanded
the
‘one
size
fits
all’
(generality)
motif
is
lost.
Accurate/simple
is
accurate,
but
it
generality
is
suspect
–
so
here
we
could
conceive
of
a
case
study
and
summarise
events
in
one
organisational
setting
in
a
manner
that
conveys
a
simply
formed
accurate
narrative,
but
here
it
is
only
applicable
to
a
restricted
population
because
we
have
lost
its
generalised
applicability.
Finally
the
general/simple
combination
conceives
analysis
and/or
solutions
that
are
easily
expressed
and
generally
applicable
but
at
the
level
of
principle
rather
than
detail
because
we
have
sacrificed,
or
traded-‐off
precision
in
order
to
take
in
wider
meaning
and
applicability.
Traditional responses to the Trade-Offs of Organisational Interventions
Organisational
researchers
and
management
consultants
alike,
appreciate
the
dilemma
that
the
GAS
model
creates
for
both
inquiry
and
consultant
based
inquiry.
This
explains
the
researcher’s
preference
for
longitudinal
study
aimed
at
theory
that
is
difficult
to
form,
narrowly
focused,
and
late
in
coming
to
the
notice
of
practitioners
(it
has
to
be
scrutinised
by
peer
review
and
eventual
publication
in
scientific
journals,
this
can
take
several
years
from
the
point
when
data
is
collected,
and
even
then
the
‘readability’
and
applicability
of
the
work
is,
often,
questionable).
The
Management
Consultant,
however,
will
create
a
series
of
general/simple
templates
(that
can
be
traced
from
the
general/accurate
work
of
researchers)
and
present
them
to
potential
clients
as
‘shop
window’
that
provides
a
panacea
for
analysing
and
correcting
organisational
issues.
These
are
treated
with
universal
scepticism
by
professional
researchers
who
recognise
that,
at
best,
these
will
be
broad-‐based
generalisations
or
conversation
pieces
that,
on
their
own,
mislead
and
fail
to
add
value
to
organisations.
Despite
the
treaties
for
professional
researchers
to
generate
relevance
for
practitioners
through
knowledge
transfer
it
causes
stress
because
it
takes
them
into
the
case
specific
analysis
and
solution
provision
of
the
simple/accurate
positioning
on
the
GAS
model
and
this
is
not
what
they
are
trained
to
do
and
neither
is
it
what
they
are
rewarded
(professionally)
for
doing.
For
the
management
consultant
the
problem
is
reversed;
they
want
to
dwell
in
the
client
specific
area
of
simple/accurate
because
this
is
where
the
bulk
of
their
fees
are
likely
to
be
earned
but
without
the
time
and
complexity
of
dwelling,
for
too
long,
in
the
theory
generation
of
general/accurate.
This
is
not
what
they
are
trained
to
do
and
neither
is
it
what
they
are
rewarded
(professionally)
for
doing……a
familiar
tale
then!
4.
Philosophy of Model Page 4 of 5
Footdown Ltd Copyright 2015 July 2015
Where does this leave the client?
The
options
for
organisations
that
want
robust
and
accurate
analysis/intervention
is
to
determine
their
own
trade-‐offs.
The
professional
researcher
will
provide
general,
but
narrow,
assessments
through
research
and
try
and
fit
this
into
simple/accurate
findings
so
that
they
produce
actionable
interventions
(forcing
complex
theory
into
simple
actions).
The
alternative,
management
consultant-‐led,
approach
will
be
to
either
survey
or
interview
large
swathes
of
the
organisation
through
their
existing
templates
and
then
try
to
interpret
these
in
ways
that
make
sense
through
actionable
interventions
(basing
accurate
assumptions
on
generalised
theory).
Both
options
described
above
will
carry
significant
cost,
time
and
disruption
so
all
but
large
organisations
will
either
do
what
they
have
always
done,
what
their
associates
have
done,
whatever
is
the
current
management
fad
or
more
likely
still,
do
nothing
because
it
is
too
problematic
and
the
return
on
investment
is
too
uncertain.
Reconciling the tensions of the GAS Model
We
suggest
that
rather
than
make
square
pegs
fit
round
holes,
diagnostic
and
intervention
techniques
designed
at
enhancing
organisational
capability
should
work
with
the,
inherent,
trade-‐offs
of
the
GAS
model,
rather
than
fight
against
them.
As
far
back
as
1947,
a
famous
scholar,
Kurt
Lewin,
coined
the
expression
‘there
is
nothing
so
practical
as
good
theory’,
e.g.
try
driving
a
car
without
understanding
the
theory
of
acceleration
and
braking!
The
novice
driver
does
not
need
to
understand
the
formula
for
the
acceleration
and
deceleration
of
mass
(general/accurate),
but
they
do
need
to
understand
a
general/simple
theory
(the
faster
you
travel
the
longer
it
takes
to
stop)
and
be
able
to
able
apply
it
in
a
specific
situation
(driving
a
car)
simple/accurate.
Lewin’s
aphorism
works
at
the
macro
and
micro
levels
of
organising,
it
guides
us
to
conclude
that
for
those
wishing
to
design
coherent
systems
of
intervention
rather
than
try
and
treat
the
three
areas
of
the
GAS
model
as,
exclusively,
separate
parts
of
the
problem,
that
they
should
be
regarded
as
integrated
(and
equally
necessary)
aspects
of
the
solution.
The
basis
of
any
system
of
intervention
should
be
grafted
upon
a
strong
theoretical
model
(general/accurate),
that
environments
should
be
broadly
scanned
for
anomalies,
disturbance
or
patterns
(general/simple)
and
that
this
should
be
used
to
conduct
subject
area
detailed
investigation
(simple/accurate)
from
which
practical
inference
and
interventions
can
be
concluded.
In
short,
a
system
capable
of
taking
complex
actions
and
deconstructing
them
into
manageable
information
from
which
simple
(not
simplistic)
conclusions
can
be
formed.
Put
another
way
a
system
that
thinks
complex
so
that
people
can
do
simple.
