Organization Development: Self as an Instrument of Change?

Is use-of-self a necessary component for all practitioners of organizational consulting? Or a bunch of fluffy feel-good stuff left over from the 1960s with little strong empirical evidence to back it up?

*Note: I am using the phrase use-of-self and self as an instrument interchangeably for this short blog

I must admit I struggle with this, partly due to the language used in this area, and partly due to being a person who uses instruments (personality assessments, surveys etc.) and just being a data-driven kinda person. I find the language “self as an instrument” to be awkward and vague.  I understand I may not be in the majority with this perception. In fact, I am pretty sure I am definitely in the minority of Organization Development (OD) type practitioners to have critical questions about this construct of self as an instrument. From reading articles like the Jamieson et al (Jamieson, D., Auron, M., Shechtman, D. 2010 Managing Use of Self for Masterful Professional Practice. OD Practitioner Vol. 42 No. 3.) piece it is a combination of factors including skills and abilities to execute tasks, interpersonal effectiveness, confidence, and more.  Don’t get me wrong, I have seen several presentations on this topic. I have read more than my fair share of journal articles on it.  I think the concept sounds really cool.  And maybe this is “shop talk” for OD folk and the terms never to be whispered to clients or colleagues outside the circle of OD. Yes, Yes, I hear that other fields use the terms like social work, some branches of therapy etc. Anyway…

For a really comprehensive coverage of the topic please view this video with Dr. Dave Jamieson:

“Use of Self for Leaders: A Conversation with Dave Jamieson” via Mee Yan Cheung-Judge’s ‘Just in Case…’ Youtube mini-series. I like how Dave weaves this in with Kurt Lewin’s field theory. Not only is Dave an award-winning Scholar-Practitioner he is also one of the coolest people I know 😊 He illustrates how use of self is made up of the following components:

1.      Self-understanding

2.      Intentionality

3.      Presence

4.      Choices

5.      Self-Management

6.      Learning from Experience (with trusted feedback and reflective practices).  

Dr. David Jamieson on the Use of Self Just in Case…

So, this all sounds very compelling and aspirational. In fact, for some it might enter into the mythical realms where only those “gurus” of OD can achieve. But I do not think that is the way it is meant. The goal is for us to incorporate reflective practice in our daily interactions. The goal is to “Show up” regardless if we are an internal practitioner, external consultant, a leader, or what ever role we play. To use our skills to the best of our abilities everyday with our clients would be a wonderful way to show up everyday

I realize we cannot just call use-of-self “how you show up” in the world. But my issue is more than the terminology for the term, its not just semantics, for me there is a conceptual clarity issue. If you search for information on this topic, you will certainly find articles, blogs and presentations.  But not a ton of research on the topic. Many people extol the virtues of the use of self, but there seems to be a bit of a lack of empirical support for it. With that said there is the Global Use of Self Research Report which you can download at Mee Yan Cheung-Judge’s Quailty & Equality page, along with other good resources.  Using quantitative data to conduct a factor analysis speaks to me more than one case study or a dozen thought piece articles in a journal.

And yet…. Global Use of Self Research may well provide some conceptual clarity I still have nagging questions. I know this is a tough area to measure. I get that! There are so many other competing frameworks out there. Let’s take just one: Learning Agility. Is use of self the same as learning agility? Or is learning agility part of Use of Self? Or is that even vice versa? Learning Agility itself has conceptually evolved over time. Here is one representation Adapted from Korn/Ferry International Learning Agility:

the ability and willingness to learn from experience and subsequently apply that learning (to perform successfully under new or first time conditions)

Without going down this rabbit hole too far, I think that it would be helpful if use-of-self advocates can help clarify how their model is the same and differentiates from learning agility.  On first blush, one might say that learning agility is just the Learning from Experience (w trusted feedback and reflective practices) part of Use-of-Self. But learning agility is also a muti-faceted concept. And there are other constructs from the social sciences, other research streams that might need to be taken into account.

And if there is convergence what if the OD field adopted modern terminology with research backing?

Last but not least where are the outcome studies? The OD field has been talking bout Self-as-An instrument for decades.  If the OD field has been talking about this, writing about this, and practicing since before I was born, then one of the leading journals should have good evaluation to show that those with optimal use-of-self have better outcomes. How ever those outcomes re measured (repeat business for external clients, increased profits for the company, better adoption of change, increased performance, survey results etc). Perhaps these outcome studies exist, if they do, please point them out for me. If there is an evaluation report out there on this topic, I would LOVE to read it.

As often happens with a blog, I believe I have presented more questions than answers. Maybe some food for thought. Would love to hear your thoughts on this intriguing topic! Thank you.

As often happens with a blog, I believe I have presented more questions than answers. Maybe some food for thought. Would love to hear your thoughts on this intriguing topic! Thank you.

Blog submitted by critical thinking evidence-based skeptic

Paul “Dana Scully” Thoresen

Image via MagicalQuote.com