The objectives of RealTime are to provide participants with skills and knowledge to increase their effectiveness under condition of rapid, uncertain change, a condition we call "white water".  Both the content and pedagogy of the course reflect this.

Here is a brief description of the theoretical rationale behind the course.

Management Philosophy

Our theoretical approach to how to be effective in white water combines psychology, organizational behavior, systems thinking and business management. Our ideas are summed up in our "3-Legged Stool" model: "inner stability", "rapidly building high quality partnerships" and "seeing and influencing systems at work".
 

1.   Inner stability

In a world of rapid change the issue is less how to manage change and more how to manage stability. Where do we find the necessary stability that provides ground to stand on and to move from? Our critique is that modern organizations have trained employees to be externally referenced, that is, to identify their success and achievement with external objects and symbols. When people are identified with externalities, change in the world is experienced as threatening and disorienting because it threatens their very identity. The only way out of this quandary in a word of white water, is to become internally referenced. An internally referenced person identifies themselves and their success with internally generated standards, values and purpose. This creates "inner stability" that takes the emotional charge out of external change. Utilizing techniques of self mastery (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994; Ellis & Dryden, 1987; Kofta, Weary, Sedek, 1998) participants can learn how to reduce the anxiety and emotional reactivity uncertainty and discontinuous change can create, thereby increasing their ability to lead and act.

2.    Rapid Partnering

Evidence is accumulating that a key requirement of success in rapidly changing business environments is the ability to create partnerships, alliances and joint ventures with others (Doz & Hamel, 1998; Kanter, 1989). In RealTime participants have an opportunity to discover the power of partnership both inside and outside the company for managing effectively in white water. Partnership can be seen as the most appropriate method of supervision, especially for knowledge workers. Partnership amongst different parts of an organization clearly leads to superior performance. As well, partnership with others who may at first seem like enemies, or competitors, often turns out to be a winning strategy (Gomes-Casseres, 1996). Participants sometimes discover, in fact, that under conditions of high uncertainty it pays to partner with anyone even if the eventual payoff is not initially visible.

Our theoretical view of this, aside from the more obvious business issues, is based on chaos theory. White water creates the kinds of instabilities that characterize dissipative structures (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Schieve & Allen, 1982). We suggest that partnering, by creating multiple interconnections, offers more pathways to rapid reorganization to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities, rather than the alternative for a dissipative structure, fragmentation (Bushe & Shani, 1991).  In addition, being a network node in a web of partnerships acts like a "strange attractor" in the sense of generating many more opportunities and possibilities for action in any particular situation.

Participants often come to conclude that building partnerships, both inside and outside their groups, is the most important thing a leader can do to ensure the success of his or her group. Building partnerships involves both a set of attitudes and a set of interpersonal skills. Participants have opportunities to examine emotional blocks to partnership as well as develop more effective partnering skills.

3.    Seeing and Influencing Organizations Working under conditions of complexity and uncertainty, we have noted a clear tendency for people to "hunker down", focus on control, and try to narrow their scope of action so they can get something done. It turns out that is often a losing strategy in white water and often a profound lesson for managers used to traditional supervisory styles. Our theoretical rational combines:

• Seeing organizational reality as a social construction (Gergen, 1994; Hosking, Dachler & Gergen, 1995),
• The influence of cognitive schemata (or "mental maps") on that social construction (Argyris & Schon, 1996; Bushe, 2001; Moch & Bartunek, 1990; Senge, 1990),
• The self-organizing properties of social systems (Kelso, 1995; Stacey, 1996) and
• The nature of power and authority in organizations (Bushe, 1998; Oshry, 1995).

Part of the big picture is to understand and work with the self-organizing properties of social systems which, in turn, requires the ability to uncover and alter cognitive frameworks that guide people's sense-making. Another part of the big picture is the nature of power and authority in the system, how the system is "powered up" and the ways in which power is distributed to allow for rapid, effective, coordinated action. Participants often learn that to be effective in white water they must get a sense of the "big picture" and "think globally, act locally". They need to stop focusing on the work at hand and scan their environments. They learn how trying to provide "leadership" can get in the way of effective action if it is too prescriptive and how to allow for and nurture self-organizing processes for rapid adjustment to change. They can learn that managing people's and a group's mental maps is the most useful form of leadership. And they often learn that organizations in white water need a very different way of designing and using power than those found in modern organizations.

Educational Philosophy

Performing and Learning in RealTime utilizes principles of adult education (Knowles, 1984; Wlodkowski, 1999), laboratory education (Benne et al, 1975; Kolb, 1984) and simulation (Jones, 1988; Thiagarajan & Stolovitch, 1978) in its pedagogical approach. The course consists of a highly realistic organizational simulation that past participants say accurately models their organizational experiences. This simulation is flexible and can be redesigned each time it is used to mirror the current dynamics in a company's internal and external environments. In the past the simulation has been used to model:
 

• issues of business start up,
• managing change in bureaucratic structures,
• dealing with rapid, unpredictable change,
• managing in regulated environments,
• dealing with entrepreneurial competitors,
• managing complex internal and external interdependencies,
• leading teams without adequate knowledge or the ability to plan,
• sorting business issues from organizational issues that are complex and interrelated, and
• overcoming barriers from internal fragmentation and sub-cultures.
  

About one third of the course time is spent working in the simulation. Another third is spent by participants discussing and reflecting on their experiences. The last third is spent discussing the relevance of what they are learning and how to apply the learning "back home". When participants all come from the same organization, linkages between what is happening in the simulation and issues back at work quickly surface. As participants develop new strategies for being successful, discussion turns to how to transfer those learnings back to the workplace. Like all laboratory courses, the "teaching and learning" in RealTime is driven primarily by the participants.

An intense "learning by doing and reflecting" experience, the lessons of RealTime tend to be different for different people. Our aim is to provide each person who comes to the course with a breakthrough insight into how they can be more effective in "white water". Since each person comes to the course with a different set of ideas, attitudes and motivations, the lessons most important to each will be unique to them.

References

Argyris, C & Schon, D.A. (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, And Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F. & Tice, D.M. (1994) Losing Control: How And Why People Fail At Self-Regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.

Benne, K.D., Bradford, L.P., Gibb, J.R. & Lippitt, J. (eds.) (1975) The Laboratory Method Of Changing And Learning: Theory And Application. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior.

Bushe, G.R.(2001) Clear Leadership. Palo Alto: Davies Black.

Bushe, G.R. (1998) "Power and the empowered organization: The design of power in highly adaptive organizations". Organization Development Practitioner. 30:4, pp.31-43

Bushe, G.R. & Shani, A.B. (1991) Parallel Learning Structures: Increasing Innovation In Bureaucracies. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley

Doz, Y.L. & Hamel, G. (1998) Alliance Advantage: The Art Of Creating Value Through Partnering. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ellis, A. & Dryden, W. (1987) The Practice Of Rational Emotive Therapy (RET). New York: Springer.

Gergen, K.J. (1994) Realities And Relationships: Soundings In Social Construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.

Gomes-Casseres, B. (1996) The Alliance Revolution: The New Shape Of Business Rivalry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hosking, D., Dachler, H.P. & Gergen, K.J. (eds.)(1995) Management And Organization: Relational Alternatives To Individualism. Brookfield, MA: Avebury.

Jones, K. (1988) Interactive Learning Events: A Guide For Facilitators. London: Kogan Page, 1988.

Kanter, R.M. (1989) When Giants Learn To Dance: Mastering The Challenge Of Strategy, Management, And Careers In The 1990?s. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kelso, J.A.S. (1995) Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization Of Brain And Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Knowles, M.S. (1984) Andragogy In Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kofta, M., Weary, G. & Sedek, G. (eds.) (1998) Personal

Control In Action: Cognitive And Motivational Mechanisms. New York: Plenum Press.

Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience As The Source Of Learning And Development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Moch, M.K. & Bartunek, J.M. (1990) Creating Alternative Realities At Work: The Quality Of Work Life Experiment At Foodcom. New York: Ballinger.

Oshry, B. (1995) Seeing Systems: Unlocking The Mysteries Of Organizational Life.  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984) Order Out Of Chaos: Man?s New Dialogue With Nature. Boulder, CO: New Science Library.

Schieve, W.C. & Allen, P.M. (eds.) (1982) Self-Organization And Dissipative Structures: Applications In The Physical And Social Sciences. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art And Practice Of The Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Stacey, R. D. (1996) Complexity And Creativity In Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Thiagarajan, S. & Stolovitch, H.D. (1978) Instructional Simulation Games. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

Wlodkowski, J. (1999) Enhancing Adult Motivation To Learn: A Comprehensive Guide For Teaching All Adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

An Introduction to the Theory Underlying the Design of Performing and Learning in RealTime