There are many ways to learn about an organization. You could interview organizational members, conduct a survey, review records and plan s and reports. You would learn a lot from all this activity, in a linear, traditional way. But there are other approaches to organizational knowledge.

The diagnostic methods I prefer is observing the organization in action, developing hypotheses, and checking them. The theory is this: A team or other organizational sub-system behaves like a holographic model of the system from which it originates. In other words, you can observe the characteristics of the entire organization in its smallest unit.

Other articles by Alain Cardon

Consider one of my favorite opportunities for observation - the staff meeting. You may be able to develop any number of working hypotheses about an organization from a single meeting. Questions to ask yourself include:

Who called the meeting? How? On what schedule is the meeting held? Who sent a substitute? How was that dealt with? When was it scheduled? When did it start? How long was it supposed to be? How long did it last? Who sat where? Who ran it? What was the meeting management style? Who talked? To whom? Who didn't talk? Who presented? What methods did they use? Who took notes? What preparation, or lack of, was in evidence? What materials were used? Was the meeting normal for the organization? If not, how did it differ from usual?

Follow your instincts when questions occur to you. Did it seem odd that no one sat next to Mr. Barnes? It might mean nothing, or it might mean a lot. Maybe his group is warring with another key group; maybe he had garlic at lunch. You'll want to verify your hypotheses.

It's a good idea to get agreement early on that you'll ask dumb questions and make crazy observations.

One of the richest veins for mining organizational issues is the energy flow of a meeting. It's related to an analysis of communication patterns. It's a tool to help you work with the client to reveal the existing systems, focusing on what happens between people rather than on the people themselves. Consider it energy analysis from a system perspective.

Like communication, energy is either polarized (flowing between just a few people or in few directions) or it is circulating (flowing in all directions as appropriate). The way energy flows and circulates indicates the development of the organization on the following scale:

	First Level -Institutional Polarity: One person speaks to the group; the group listens and approves. Individuals are not differentiated, but treated as a mass. Common in "paternalistic" systems, and appropriate in times of first learning or crisis, this style induces passivity, and outlives its usefulness quickly.
	Second Level: Informational Polarity: The leader or "expert" communicates with each person in turn, often defending an idea. Bob presents; Mathew asks a question; Bob answers and defends; Elise makes a comment; Bob answers again. Elise and Mathew do not interact. Bob is the center of the "star" Energy moves to and from the center, but that's all. Expertise is respected, but a lot of energy goes into defending positions, during the meeting, and everywhere else.
	Third Level- Relational Polarity: Individuals have developed in their ability to contribute and be recognized, but full participation is still a ways off. Just a few people participate, based on their expertise or position. Often, there are two people vying for team attention or approval, while others watch. Elise and Mathew might be the energy focus, arguing while the others sitting passively by.
	Fourth Level - Energetic Circularity: Discussion and interaction flow freely among all members of the system. Speakers don't make long speeches. They make brief points, related to the general train of thought rather than disrupting it. One speaker is followed by another in an unpredictable, but flowing way. You might characterize this as a "network" system. Energy develops positively, naturally, organically, rather than emanating from one or two people or being infused from outside

Review your observations as you've agreed with your client beforehand, either during the meeting or later. Ask for confirmation, for meaning, or for other examples of the organization of similar patterns (they will be there, I guarantee it.) You might say, "people have contributed ideas in this meeting, but each one had a new idea. They didn't seem to deal with or build on other people's ideas. How do you react to that? How else does that show up around here?

Discuss each relevant point in turn. Don't rush the discussion; allow plenty of silence for people to think while they make observations. Let them discover meaning and make linkages to other parts of the organization. If you find a lot of energy (denial is energy) around a given point, follow it a ways to see where it leads.

With this kind of inquiry, you and the client organization can work together to discover what works in the organization and what doesn't. Analyze the energy and information with the perspective that what you see here represents a microcosm of the larger organizational system. This kind of organizational analysis aids in creating changes or interventions that work for the whole organization, not just the subsystem.

This method of building organizational understanding also eliminates the problem of being drawn to "family secrets," which often happens when you do diagnostic interviews. When people say to you " Don't tell anyone I told you this but…" they are asking you to collude in keeping secret things which should be discussed openly.

Following your discussion of the patterns you have observed and there possible meanings, you can work together with the client to find ways to support what works, and to look clearly at what seems to be affecting the organization's potential.

So, next time you're preparing to work with a client, ask to sit in on a meeting. The meeting will serve as a window into the lager organization and its existing systems. And all the diagnostic tools will be there with you - your senses, your curiosity, your instincts, and your deductions.