1981 Eden Et Al [soda].pdf

Journal of

Management Studies, 18, i , 1981

THE

INTERSUBJECTIVITY OF ISSUES ISSUES OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY

AND

COLIN EDEN, SUE JONES, DAVID SIMS AND TIM SMITHIN Centre for the Study of Organizational Change and Development, University of Bath ABSTRACT

-

This paper describes research concerned with assisting groups in organiza tions handle their complex , ill structured policy issues in ways which we believe are significantly different from many typical policy analysis projects. It is our belief that many systems research, operational research and manage ment science projects have concentrated on ‘objective’, usually quantitative data at the expense of losing their clients’ interest and commitment. Our work is concerned with taking account of intersubjectivity in policy analysis and evaluation . It is orientated to the construction of models that will be owned by our clients because they recognize as legitimate, and explicitly take account of, the subjective and particular knowledge of individuals within organizations. They also explicitly take account of the interaction of shared and individual knowledge as a group comes to define an intersubjective group issue.

-

-

INTRODUCTION

IN his presidential address to the Society for General Systems Research, Sir Geoffrey Vickers (1978) referred to the importance of ‘intersubjectivity’ as a basis for understanding the development of science. He went on to argue for greater attention to the concept in the development of the systems movement. Over the past few years the authors of this paper have been attempting to pay attention to intersubjectivity within groups in organizations and understand ing its importance for effective problem-finding and problem-solving in

-

teams.

In this work we have sought to demonstrate the way in which issues are individually construed by persons, so that different persons will all experience different issues according to their own perceptions, interests and duties ( Armstrong and Eden , 1979 ; Eden and Sims, 1977 ; Sims, 1978, 1979 ) . Some of our studies, such as those just listed, emphasize the individual nature of the reality within which problems are constructed. Others ( for example Eden Address for reprints : Colin Eden, B.Sc., Ph.D., Centre for the Study of Organizational Change and Development, University of Bath, Bath BA 2 7 AY, England.

Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved

38

,

COLIN EDEN SUE

JONES, DAVID SIMS AND TIM SMITHIN

and Jones, 1980) concentrate on the way in which a group of people can build and rebuild issues for themselves. The studies with which we are con cerned in the present paper attempt to combine these two aspects by permit ting a group of persons to discuss and debate about explicated models of issues without the need for those models to lose any of the subjective beliefs and values which individual members may have and may have revealed about those issues. In this work and our current activities we therefore take an essentially phenomenological stance on the nature of experience and the foundations of knowledge. We consider that experience is, at root, confrontation with phenomena rather than ‘facts’ or ‘laws’. All knowledge is therefore in one sense purely subj’ective or personal knowledge as Polany ( 1958) describes it. Whilst we acknowledge that notions of consensus, shared goals and shared knowledge do exist, and that many teams do reach a genuine consensus and ‘team view’ we feel that because team communication reflects intersubjectivity, meaning that individual subjects communicate with other individual subjects, there is a need to look more closely at the individual understandings and views of each member of the team. We also wish to examine carefully, when teams feel they have a common appreciation of a situation, what it is that they have created which is in some way additional to each individual conception, and how this ‘tran-subjective knowledge’ ( Ward, 1920) is interpreted by each team member. The significance of this perspective to our problem solving practice is that, unlike problem solvers who might choose to place themselves at either end of a spectrum from behavioural scientists to systems scientists, we see no clear demarcation between different types of roles for practitioners concerned to assist the working of teams. Our experience as well as our conceptual orienta tion leads us to believe that the ‘policy’ issues perceived by individuals are inevitably characterized by important idiosyncratic beliefs and values, and concerns about the internal politics of the organization and relationships with other team members some, if not all, of which are likely to be crucial to policy choices perceived and made. Similarly ‘interpersonal’ problems of the kind ‘the problem with Dick is that he never listens’ may be seen as important just because the result for Dick is his colleagues’ refusal to implement his policy proposals or for them the consequence may be an inability to influence policy in the way that they would wish. It is our feeling that neglect of the issues raised by the notion of inter subjectivity leads to results in research and consultancy which do not take sufficient account of individual perceptions or definitions of situations and lead, consequently, to ‘solutions’ which no one likes because they relate to problems which no one owns ( Eden and Sims, 1977 ) . Coupled with a ‘strive towards consensus’ model is an emphasis on problem jo/^Vz , rather than xohltmflnding or problem-construction ( Sims, 1979 ) . Coupled with this orientation is the view that derives from a notion that a team can be pre-

-

-

-

-

-

-

^

Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved

^

THE

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

OF ISSUES AND ISSUES OF

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

39

sented with a problem which is common to all of them and which they can then set about solving, or that a team can relatively quickly agree upon or discover the ‘real’ problem which has to be solved. INTERSUBJECTIVITY

IN TEAMS

When considering the working of teams in organizations it seems important and indeed commonsensical that such working involves the interaction and negotiation of shared and idiosyncratic understandings. A team is continually involved in some process of negotiating reality amongst its members. Much of this negotiation , however, is likely to remain implicit, as in most social interaction. Members of teams are rarely given the facility, explicitly or systematically, to explore different as well as similar perspectives. We see as critical to working the intersubjective nature of issues the provision of a facility for making explicit this process of negotiating reality. As Vickers implies, issues belong to people ; an issue is not the ‘objective’ characteristic of some objective sequence of events to be discovered by a consultant and proferred by his superior expert judgement as the ‘real’ issue. The usefulness of the notion of intersubjectivity, for us, is based in conceptual necessity. Regardless of the philosophical bases of the following two positions, we find the notion that individuals are separate and alone, each inhabiting their own subjective reality, to be, in its extreme form , almost as unhelpful as the opposing notion that the world is a place of facts which can be proved or disproved , and about which we can all be expected to agree. For ourselves, we find that it is best to conceive the world as being individually constructed , with each person’s reality being separate and distinctive, and yet with that reality not being so far detached from other persons’ realities as to be incomprehensible to them . Usually we find that persons believe their separate realities not to be so far unrelated to one another that they cannot talk, debate, argue, negotiate across those separate and different realities. Indeed, there are some points at which different persons’ realities resemble each other so closely that we can speak as if they were matters of objective fact. Organizational situations are particularly well characterized by the notion of intersubjectivity . Characteristically in an organization , members will have a considerable cultural, organizational and social commonality among them, which would enable two persons from that organization who had never met before to communicate with one another with much greater confidence than would, for example, an American airline pilot and a Papuan headhunter who had never met before. At the same time, the different professional back grounds, political and religious beliefs, values, interests and so on of organiza tional members mean that their understandings of the world are not so similar that they can be regarded as equivalent ; if they were so, then meetings could never have any significance for decision- making, but only for commun

-

Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved

,

COLIN EDEN SUE

40

JONES,

DAVID SIMS AND TIM SMITHIN

ication, and even the most cynical opponent of committee life would be unlikely to make that claim. For these reasons we consider that intersubjec tivity is an important notion for understanding organizational worlds, because it captures a characteristic experience for members of organizations. The theoretical and conceptual commitment to the notion of the inter subjectivity of knowledge, which guides our work with teams is conceptually derived from phenomenology ( see for example Bitter, 1973) , the sociology of ‘defining situations5, and the work of cognitive psychologists such as Kelly (1955) and Neisser ( 1976). Here man is seen as constructing his individual reality according to the psychological frameworks he has evolved to make sense of and act in his world , rather than perceiving some objective reality. In particular we find helpful the succinct aphorism of Thomas and Thomas ( 1928) where if ‘men define situations as real they are real in their conse quences . As Ball ( 1972 ) has said ‘what Thomas is basically arguing here . . . is that . . . in order to understand social conduct we must look . . . to the meanings of situations and the situated meanings within them as they are phenomenologically experienced by the actors located within them5. As we stated above this is not to suggest that meanings and realities are not shared. We see a dialectic between the individuality of reality and reality as a ‘social construction 5 (see particularly Berger and Luckman, 1966) in which meanings are ‘socially sustained 5 and experienced ‘as social facts 5 ( Silverman, 1970) and it is this dialectic which gives rise to the complicated notion of intersubjectivity which we have attempted to carry into our practice of working with teams. If we were seeking some concept which conveniently encapsulates what we are paying attention to in devising ways of assisting teams it would be to find ways of assisting the formal process of listening. By this we mean the listening by a consultant to members of a team ; by members of a team to each other ; by members of a team to themselves. What is consciously and carefully listened to are the theories, attitudes, worries, values and political concerns that members of the team have about the nature, causes and consequences of the current situation and any picture of some preferred situation that they may have. We believe that listening must also involve the provision of a tool that allows members of a team to hold on to the complexity of the different bodies of wisdom and desires of the team and above all allows that complexity to be managed and negotiated through careful and explicit analysis.

-

-

-

5

ACCOUNTING FOR

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

THE MODELLING PROCESS

The client’s subjective or ‘assumptive world ( Young, 1977) is represented by a cognitive map The map consists of concepts (idiomatically expressed in the client’s own phrasing) linked by arrows representing a causal link between the concepts of the form ‘Concept A has consequences for or can be explained by Concept B5 There is also a facility in the mapping procedure to indicate 5

.

.

Copyright © 2QQ 1 - AII Rights 'Reserved

THE

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

OF ISSUES AND ISSUES OF

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

41

connotative, rather than causal, links between concepts. The process of map construction and the use of the map is intended to facilitate the elaboration and exploration by the client of his own belief and value system in relation to particular issues. The cognitive map is similar in form to the influence diagrams used in systems dynamics, but it is specifically orientated towards an individual’s view of ‘reality’ rather than the aggregated models commonly used in systems dynamics (Coyle, 1977 ; Forester, 1961, 1969 ; Meadows et al., 1 9 7 2 ). In our case it is important to note that the model is a representation of the concepts and language used by members of a team rather than the representation of some objective reality. The methods for coding from listening are described in detail elsewhere ( Eden et al., 1979a ) and are an extensive development of coding methods used by political scientists to model the belief systems of foreign policy decision- makers ( Axelrod, 1976 ) . We have also developed a suite of computer programs ( Eden et al ., 1979b) to aid the manipulation and exploration of the cognitive maps which can quickly become too large for easy manual analysis. Working on intersubjective issues by attending to the individual views of the situation means that the initial stages of a project involve the consultant in several meetings with each member of the team. The first proper meeting with each member rarely involves the consultant in any formal modelling or analysis. This usually begins at a second meeting when the consultant can feed back the cognitive map he will have constructed on the basis of his notes or tape recordings of the first meeting. He can then begin a more structured exploration of the issue, as it is defined by the individual , using the model as the basis for discussion. The feedback can take place around a visual repre sentation, with the consultant very often developing the model directly with the client. In this he is undertaking ‘on the spot’ coding in response to the modification and elaboration that invariably takes place as the client grasps the nature and purpose of the model as a representation of his thinking with which he can dialogue. It is usually only at the stage where the individual client is satisfied the model validly and adequately represents his image of the world , and there is some part of which he feels ready to discuss with the other team members, that there is a move to bringing the group (or possibly subgroups) together to work on creating a team intersubjective model. The construction of an inter subjective model involves the consultant in combining the individual models into one overall model, or, more particularly, those parts of the individual models that the team members are prepared to reveal to others. This group model is constructed strictly on the basis that concepts and relationships are only aggregated or merged after explicit negotiation among the members of the team . It is therefore likely to contain a significant number of contradictory beliefs deriving from the different perceptions of the team members as well as concepts that may have virtually identical verbal tags, the meanings of which ,

-

-

Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved

,

JONES, DAVID SIMS AND TIM SMITHIN however, as elaborated through their conceptual and belief context may be significantly different ( Eden, 1978) . As a concept or relationship appears to be puzzling or contradictory the members of the team can address these, and change the model if they so wish, as an outcome of the discussion. A significant feature of using an externalized model of qualitative beliefs and values appears to be that the process defuses many of the possibly disturbing interpersonal dynamics of team negotiation. This is because concepts are not attributed to any particular person except as a consequence of an individual particularly choosing to identify it as his own. The model, however , is a representation through which a group can dialogue, with each other and with themselves, to construct an evolving intersubjective definition of the situation. It is perhaps worth noting that within our style of modelling we do not assign strengths or importances to particular beliefs, and this is helpful for our work on intersubjectivity. When a team member begins to look at the subjective understanding of an issue of another team member, the role of a facilitator to this process ( Sims and Jones, 1980 ; Sims et al., 1979) is to help the person not too quickly to assign weights to beliefs of others, but rather to consider them and to toy with them, until he has formed an appreciation of how the other came by and held his subjective belief, and what that belief means within his world. This we consider to be the very essence of how the consideration of intersubjectivity can be useful to team members. When the team can agree that the model is representative of their problem then they can begin to undertake the process of devising appropriate actions through the identification of concepts that are central to the issue and revealed in the model. Often this involves identifying, usually through computer analysis, any critical qualitative feedback loops that may be broken or have their direction changed . Analysis consists of exploring the ramifications of a possible intervention for the valued outcomes of the members of a team. A further stage has often been negotiation around a ‘pros and cons’ analysis of the implications of actions that affect different values of different members in different or contradictory ways. As we have shown elsewhere (Eden and Jones, 1980 ; Sims and Jones, 1980) the cognitive map is a model in a form that makes it possible for mathematical or quantitative analysis to be under taken using standard computer simulation techniques. In this way it then 42

COLIN EDEN SUE

-

becomes possible for a comparative evaluation of quantitative and qualitative outcomes to take place if required. Usually, however, the very process of exploring an issue is sufficient to change the nature of the issue, often in such a way that the devising of incisive or ameliorative sets of actions becomes

unnecessary and irrelevant. The stage of negotiating the definition of the issue occurs over several sessions. During this time the consultant often continues working at an individual level as members of a team seek to evaluate, using their own individual models, the implications of the group activity. The result of further individual

Cupyiiyhl Q 2001 Alf RiylltS R

ivbd

THE

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

OF ISSUES AND ISSUES OF

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

43

work invariably means modifying the individual’s map and , thus, possibly adding concepts and relationships to the larger model. Similarly an individual may wish to explore at his leisure the data contained within the larger model and compare them with his own. Clearly this process enables the careful and gradual change of mutual understanding which is evidenced as each indivi dual map absorbs more concepts from the team map and, conversely, the team map absorbs more individuality. As a result of our involvement in a variety of different projects in the field of housing policy, probation, publishing, health care, printing and commun ity relations, all of which have been conducted with a commitment to intersubjectivity, we shall go on to comment upon the problems and para doxes of our methodological perspectives.

-

-

INDIVIDUALITY AND TEAMS

The need to take account of intersubjectivity seems overwhelming. It is also clear that the deliberate attempt that it involves to address complexity can appear both to a consultant and members of teams to be a debilitating pro cess, the outcome of which can be potentially destructive to a team. Most particularly an awareness of complexity can sap the desire or felt capacity to act. The world is complicated enough, it may be argued, without seeking to make even more of the complexity explicit and , thus, even more of the diffi culties of acting effectively in the world apparent. This is particularly so when whatever one does can be simulated to have both good and bad consequences for somebody in the team. Encouraging members of a team to listen both caringly and analytically to each other is inevitably consuming of both time and energy. Organizational norms can make it seem laborious and time wasting and thus procrastinating of action where swift decisive action is highly valued and rewarded. As Berlin ( 1978) argues ‘men of action cannot be called upon constantly to be examining themselves’. Nevertheless, as Berlin goes on to argue, the examina tion of not only oneself but others can be an immensely rewarding experience as one is given different spectacles with which to see the world. It can also be a frightening one, and the anger and fear can be turned on to the consultant :

-

-

-

‘Several times over the years I have been confronted, almost accused, by people whom I have endeavoured to help. They have gained the perspec tive to be able to talk about their own concerns differently which means they have expanded their capacity to perceive things from several different positions. This complicates the process of decision-making and they become furious at me for robbing them in some way of the limited view of reality which has provided them with a kind of stability. I become ambivalent because I wonder if learning is worthy of that much anguish5 ( Mori moto, 1973) .

—

-

-

Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved

COLIN EDEN, SUE JONES, DAVID SIMS AND TIM SMITHIN 44 Our experience suggests that the construction of individual maps and sharing parts of them around certain issues undoubtedly does generate a considerable quantity of data for each individual to assimilate. All members at different stages usually express worries about the increased complexity around the ‘original’ issue and the time needed to ‘get to grips’ with the data. It seems to us, however, that the sheer wealth of data generated by each member thinking about the original issue supports the need to pay some attention to the individual constructions, and for the team members to gain some ‘feel’ for what the issue looks like to other team members and, in particular, what issue it generates for them. In some instances, for example, the presenter of an issue states that through the process of examining other people’s maps he has become aware of the problems it creates for them and of aspects of the issue which clearly worry them but about which he had not been previously aware. The gaining of these additional views of the issue is always felt to be important to the eventual satisfaction which each team member gets from the possible actions taken by the team to tackle the issue. Nevertheless it can also be frustrating to have to cope with the irritation all of us can often feel when paying attention to the fears, ‘obsessions’, and ‘peculiar’ beliefs of our colleagues, however trusted and liked, when the situation is after all so clear and obvious to ourself. Indeed perhaps the most significantly problematic outcome for members of teams who have a belief that they should, and can, work together through negotiation is the possible discovery that they have sets of beliefs and values that are irreconcilable, not over one issue alone, but all- pervadingly. The axiom that it is sometimes better to leave certain stones unturned is based on a sound commonsense understanding of the nature and needs of successful social interaction. The view that ‘it is better to face up to problems rather than ignore them’ can be cold comfort to those who feel hurt and bewildered by the removal of the security that the people they work with every day share at least broadly and in important aspects a similar perspective. It can certainly be cold comfort to those who have little choice about whom they work with, as is the case in the majority of organizations. Respect for intersubjective issues within a team may also create team norms which make it difficult for members to suggest compromise or agree action, since to do so goes against the spirit of individuality established for the process. This can lead to an equally unhelpful situation of ‘forced difference’ as opposed to the more usual ‘forced consensus’. It may also be unhelpful to expect that a definite outcome will be the result of any particular investigation of intersubjective issues. It may be that members of the team find it useful to have a deeper awareness of their colleagues’ views, and a richer view of the team, and this additional understanding leads to changes in the way the team operates which are beneficial in the longer term. For instance some members of teams often express the view that they had, during the exercise, come to view certain aspects of the

Cupyiiylit © 2001 All Riyhts

RbsyiyBd

THE

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

OF ISSUES AND ISSUES OF

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

45

team work in a different way and it helped them understand more clearly what their colleagues were trying to say and do (see particularly Armstrong and Eden, 1979 ). It may also happen that a more elaborate view of the team and team members will enable the team to identify more easily issues on which there is and is not a common interest and understanding, and possibilities of concerted action. Even though a team may have started off with the idea of finding a ‘team solution’ to the issues, it is equally valid for them to recognize the different perspectives of each member on an issue, and act individually in the knowledge of these differences. The team remains a team because each member appreciates the legitimacy of this approach, and not all issues will produce such extreme divergence of views. Because there is not a well defined outcome does not mean that the issue has not been adequately tackled, and it is perhaps equally valid to ‘find out a short way by a long wandering’ ( Hardy, 1978) than always produce more ‘efficient5 out

-

-

comes. In the light of these problems why therefore do we persist in the belief that paying explicit attention to issues of intersubjectivity is worthwhile ? Our experience of working with many teams in several organizations (including ourselves) , is that all participants, in the end, have found it valuable and rewarding to pay attention to their own and each other’ s intersubjective knowledge and concerns. The words ‘in the end’ are used advisedly. It has been a feature of this work that most of the members of the groups, at different times passed through a phase of anxiety or depression or disillusion ment as the process seemed to be too slow or complicated or divisive. Yet these feelings did pass, as a consequence of the continued patience and encouragement not only of ourselves as consultants but usually one or two other members of the teams. The process was described by one individual in a recent project ‘like working our way through a maze, with lots of blind alleys, but we had to do this in order to find sensible strategies’. In the project in which this individual was involved the outcome was a set of policy pro posals ; which meant that the team had participated in defining and creating their own future within the organization rather than having it determined by senior management. In other projects the outcome has not been a clearly identifiable and ‘finite’ set of actions but a new awareness which has ‘dis solved’ rather than ‘solved’ the issue. The team processes described in this paper, which emphasize listening to other team members, reflection on issues, and careful exploration of individ ual views, implies a purpose and method for team work which is in contrast to the way many teams reportedly operate in organizations, government and voluntary groups. Managers are sometimes encouraged to have as few meetings as possible and to get on with the ‘real work’. Similarly group chair persons are often anxious ‘to do the business efficiently’. Our feeling which has been heightened by recent exercises on intersubjective issues is that work which ignores individual perspectives can lead to an ‘efficient’ but spurious

-

-

-

-

Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved

COLIN EDEN, SUE

46

JONES,

DAVID SIMS AND TIM SMITHIN

activity since many team members are not committed to the activity, and the decisions have not benefited from the range of experience available within the

.

team

REFERENCES

ARMSTRONG, A. and EDEN, C. (1979). ‘An exploration of occupational role : an exercise in team development*. Personnel Review, 8, 1, 20-23. AXELROD, R. ( 1976). Structure of Decision Princeton, New Jersey : University of Princeton Press. BALL, D. W. (1972 ). * “ Definition of the situation” : some theoretical and methodological consequences of taking W. I. Thomas seriously *. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2, 61-82. BERGER, P. L. and LUCKMANN, T. ( 1966 ) . The Social Construction of Reality New York : Doubleday. BERLIN, I. (1978). ‘Sir Isaiah Berlin on men of ideas and children’s puzzles.’ Listener, 26 January, 111-3. BITTNER, E. ( 1973). ‘Objectivity and realism in sociology *. In Psathas, G. (Ed.), Phenomenological Sociology : Issues and Applications New York : Wiley. COYLE, R. G. ( 1977 ) . Management System Dynamics London : Wiley. EDEN, C. ( 1978). ‘Operational research and organization development *. Human Relations, 31, 657-74. EDEN, C. and JONES, S. (1980). ‘Publish or perish — a case study*. Journal of the O.R. Society, 31, 131-9. EDEN, C., JONES, S. and SIMS, D. ( 1979a). Thinking in Organizations London : Mac millan. EDEN, C. and SIMS, D. ( 1977). ‘Problem definition between consultant and client * Working Paper, Centre for the Study of Organizational Change and Development, University of Bath. EDEN, C. and SIMS, D. ( 1979). ‘On the nature of problems in consulting practice * Omega , 7, 1-9. EDEN, C. and SMITHIN, T. (1979). ‘Operational gaming in action research* European Journal of Operational Research, 3, 450-8. EDEN, C., SMITHIN, T. and WILTSHIRE, J. ( 1979 b). ‘Cognition simulation and learn ing*. Working paper, School of Management, University of Bath. FORRESTER, J. W. (1961 ) . Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. FORRESTER , J. W. ( 1969). Urban Dynamics Cambridge, Mass. : M.I.T. Press. HARDY, T. (1978) . Tess of the D’ Urbervilles. Harmondsworth : Penguin Books. KELLY, G. A. ( 1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs New York : Norton. MEADOWS, D. H., MEADOWS, D. L., RANDERS, J. and BEHRENS, III, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth London : Earth Island. MORIMOTO, K . (1973). ‘Notes on the context for learning*. Harvard Educational Review, 43, 245-57. NEISSER, U. ( 1976). Cognition and Reality, San Francisco: Freeman. POLYANI, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. SILVERMAN, D. (1970) . The Theory of Organisations. London: Heinemann. SIMS, D. ( 1978). Problem Construction in Teams Doctoral thesis, University of Bath SIMS, D (1979). ‘A framework for understanding the definition and formulation of problems in teams * Human Relations, 32, 909-21

.

.

.

.

.

-

. .

.

-

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Copyiiyhl © 2001 AIIRiytrts

THE

.

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

OF ISSUES AND ISSUES OF

INTERSUBJECTIVITY

47

.

.

SIMS , D , EDEN , C and JONES, S. ( 1979). ‘Facilitating problem definition in teams’ Paper presented to 3rd European Congress on Operational Research, Amsterdam, April. ( Forthcoming in European Journal of Operational Research ) SIMS, D. and JONES, S. ( 1980) ‘Making problem definition explicit in teams’ Working paper, Centre for the Study of Organizational Change and Development, Univers ity of Bath. THOMAS, W. I. and THOMAS, D S. ( 1928) . The Child in America : Behavior Problems and Progress. New York : Knopf. VICKERS, G. ( 1978) . ‘Some implications of systems thinking’. General Systems Bulletin, 8, 9- J 4 WARD , J. (1920). Psychological Principles. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. WILTSHIRE , J. and EDEN, C. (1978). ‘Cognitive policy evaluation : COPE manual a guide to the computer software package’. Centre for the Study of Organizational Change and Development, University of Bath. YOUNG , K. (1977) . ‘Values in the policy process’. Policy and Politics, 5, 1-22.

.

.

-

.

*

—

4

Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved