Léon de Caluwé

Why Simulation Games Work-In Search of the Active Substance: A Synthesis

In this article, the authors reflect on the question why simulation games are such an effective tool for learning. The article is based on the authors’ experience and that of many other practitioners in the field. The article posits that it is the confluence of systemic knowledge, practice, emotional involvement, and social embeddedness that creates the potential to achieve results that no other methods can match. A simulation game run constitutes a bout of individual and collective purposeful action by an individual or a group formed specifically for that purpose. People have evolved to be supremely good at just that. Simulation games can teach systemic knowledge, and they can enable participants to try out organizational changes. This potential is not always realized, however. Game runs are “alive” and variable, and this is a risky strength. They activate not only the explicit rules but also the hidden cultural rules of the participants. This can lead to memorable learning as well as to frustration, particularly when games are used across cultures. The article specifies reasons why games could fail and offers ways to avoid these pitfalls. It shows that experience and craftsmanship are needed in game design, facilitation, and debriefing.

Towards organizational development for sustainable high-quality medical teaching

Literature shows that faculty development programmes are not organizationally embedded in academic hospitals. This leaves medical teaching a low and informal status. The purpose of this article is to explore how organizational literature can strengthen our understanding of embedding faculty development in organizational development, and to provide a useful example of organizational development with regards to medical teaching and faculty development. Constructing a framework for organizational development from the literature, based on expert brainstorming. This framework is applied to a case study. A framework for organizational development is described. Applied in a context of medical teaching, these organizational insights show the process (and progress) of embedding faculty development in organizational development. Organizational development is a necessary condition for assuring sustainable faculty development for high-quality medical teaching. Organizational policies can only work in an organization that is developing. Recommendations for further development and future research are discussed.

Gaming Research in Policy and Organization: An Assessment From the Netherlands

In this article, the authors assess the use of gaming/simulation for research purposes within the organization and policy sciences. They describe three categories of research: (a) gaming/simulation for pure research, (b) gaming/simulation for policy development, and (c) gaming/simulation for policy implementation and organizational change. For each category, an example project is described. Studying six projects and interviewing experts on these projects, they draw lessons for each category. At the end of the article, they conclude with eight methodological characteristics of gaming for empirical-analytical study of policy and organization projects.

The Last Stage of Product Development: Interventions in Existing Operational Processes

We explored two questions in two empirical studies. In the first study we wanted to find out whether we could describe the interactions between New Product Development (NPD) and Operations by using a generic theory of change management and interventions. In the second study we explored such interventions during implementation and wanted to find out to what extent these interventions followed the theories of change. Some of the interactions are interventions from NPD to Operations in order to change the work of Operations. We found that these interventions and intended changes fit the theories of change management quite well. This means that the change literature gives good insights into the causes of success and failure of these interventions and could mean that, in some respect, we can apply the knowledge of these theories of change management and interventions to the field of NPD. This insight provides a new and additional perspective: NPD to be seen as a process that uses interventions to facilitate, or provoke, change within operational processes. We see too much attention paid to the project management methods and ‘hard’ theories, for example rationality, control, hierarchy, planning, predicting and prescribing. There is good reason to add the more ‘soft’ theories of change to NPD practice, with extra and explicit attention to learning, trial and error, monitoring, tell and sell, empathy, and co-operation. NPD practitioners are also very much focused on the product and less (or not at all) on the actual changes that have to take place in production (Operations) related to the implementation of these processes. For successful implementation interventions need to be tuned towards the receiver. The interventionist (i.e. NPD practitioners) must be aware that there is a range of choice if different intervention strategies in order to tune their intervention efforts more effectively towards the receiver. In order to be able to do this, NPD practitioners, as well as the people from Operations, need to become skilled in using a generic theory of intervention and change, such as the one described in this paper, during their interactions.

Why Is That We Know We Have to—Or Want to—Change, but Find Ourselves Moving Around in Circles?:

In this essay, we will explore a question which is widely recognized in the world of practitioners of change and which seems a problematic issue in any change process, but is badly understood in theory: “What is happening when there is a lot of enthusiasm about a change initiative and a lot of knowledge about the change, but nothing happens?” Why is coming into action so difficult in any change process? We ourselves, being scholars as well as practitioners, are in the middle of trying to understand the answers to these questions. In this essay, we will explore the literature to shed light on this. We discuss that (a) “people consistently act inconsistently,” (b) resistance is a multi-layered and multi-meaning concept that needs reconceptualization, and (c) perception of the change recipient plays a pivotal role in every change process.In this essay, we will explore a question which is widely recognized in the world of practitioners of change and which seems a problematic issue in any change process, but is badly understood in theory: “What is happening when there is a lot of enthusiasm about a change initiative and a lot of knowledge about the change, but nothing happens?” Why is coming into action so difficult in any change process? We ourselves, being scholars as well as practitioners, are in the middle of trying to understand the answers to these questions. In this essay, we will explore the literature to shed light on this. We discuss that (a) “people consistently act inconsistently,” (b) resistance is a multi-layered and multi-meaning concept that needs reconceptualization, and (c) perception of the change recipient plays a pivotal role in every change process.

Creating a Colorful Model of Change Reflection on Developing a Theory as Scholar-Practitioners

This article describes how a meta-theory of change, now referred to as the “color model,” was developed over a period of two decades. We look back to better understand how one creative idea took on many manifestations and is now a widely used theory. We identify three distinct periods of development: inception, storming and norming, and maturity. In each of these periods, we discern a similar pattern of activities, in line with Smith and Hitt’s four-stage model of theory development: tension, searching, elaboration, and proclamation. The case illustrates the journey was spurred on by breakdowns in meaning, influenced by context and serendipity, and shaped by incremental elaboration. As academic practitioners, we discuss how our position in the field affected the way we approach theory development. We conclude the article with a discussion on the downside of originality.

Assessing developmental space in teams

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to develop an instrument to assess the developmental space that teams create; examine whether creating more developmental space leads to greater satisfaction with team results; and decide which of three models best predicts perceived results. Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents a quantitative study of individuals (N 257). An instrument was designed to assess developmental space and was validated with a factor analysis. Multiple regression analyses were used to examine whether creating developmental space led to greater satisfaction with team results. Findings – This study confirms the four-factor structure of developmental space suggested by earlier research. Creating more developmental space is positively related to perceived team results. Practical implications – This research highlights the importance of creating developmental space and provides teams with an instrument to assess their developmental space as a starting point for improvement. Originality/value – The interactions teams use are crucial in explaining the effects of teamwork, but seem underexposed in team research. Creating developmental space is a relatively new concept, hitherto only researched qualitatively. This empirical study extends and endorses previous research on developmental space by providing a quantitative assessment.

Breaking the Paradox: Understanding How Teams Create Developmental Space:

Past research shows that teams working on a complex task need developmental space to be successful. They can create this space in their interaction by undertaking four activities: creating future, reflecting, organizing, and dialoguing. These four activities refer to two orientations: the performance orientation, limiting the space, and the sensemaking orientation, opening up the space. Teams need them both, yet it seems inconsistent and impossible to achieve together, thus a paradox. In this exploratory research, we address the way in which teams experience and handle that “developmental space paradox,” and how it affects team success. Individual team members (N = 70) from 12 teams were interviewed. Successful (n = 7) and unsuccessful (n = 5) teams were compared. The results show that successful teams experience this paradox differently than the unsuccessful teams, and that both categories choose other coping strategies to handle this paradox.