Non-directive orientation ( Lapassade, 1961 ; cf., Pagès, 1961 , 1962 )

Aims to elucidate communication problems within groups and organizations.

Promotes personal growth by creating a climate of authentic interpersonal relationships.

The non-directive approach takes on a different character depending on whether or not a prior frame of reference is used, and on the different phases of an organizational development activity. It can be “structuring” or “informing”.

Pagès (1961) focuses on self-regulation phenomena within groups and between interdependent groups within organizations (see Bélanger, 1972: p. 648 ).

The approach is mainly applied at group level.

However, since groups interact within social organizations, the structures and modes of operation of these organizations are called into question.

Non-directiveness is defined as an orientation and a set of techniques that characterize the help a change agent intends to provide to a client-system in the search for the latter’s enhancement or better adaptation to its environment.

Direct in situ observation approach ( Journé, 2005 )

The approach is used as an investigative or diagnostic strategy that avoids, in part, the a posteriori reconstruction and decontextualization biases that affect analyses of data relating to decision-making and sensemaking in management “situations”.

It can be used to analyze the cognitive dimensions of expert activities (technostructure), execution tasks (operational center), as well as communication within work teams, or in highly computerized situation.

This method is applied in real time, from a managerial perspective.

- It can be used as a “case study” in the sense of grounded theory.

- It proposes a dynamic observation system to collect data and make them usable. This system is built around four observation strategies (see Journé, 2005: p. 76 ).

- The proposed system has four characteristics: a) it is centered on the direct and “situated” observation of actors’ actions and verbalizations; b) it is a system in the sense that it organizes the interaction between observation strategies with different and complementary objectives and characteristics, with the aim of articulating methodological opportunism (openness to surprise, acceptance of a certain degree of indeterminacy) and rigor; c) each strategy is defined according to the physical constraints of observation; d) the system favors rapid mobilization, flexibility and adaptability of the observation device.

The basic unit of intervention is the “work team” in a work “situation”. This refers to the analysis of the manager’s real activity, focusing on sensemaking and sensegiving in the face of ambiguity and indeterminacy.

Journé (2005: p. 71) speaks of a “normally disturbed situation”. Everything being “normal”, it is sufficiently disturbed to call for a reaction from the actors involved.

To define the observable traces of the cognitive aspects of situational activity, the method draws on the theories of “situated action” and “cognition”, recognizing that the relevant unit for analyzing cognitive processes is the socio-technical system within which the individual acts.

He (or She) plays the same role as in an action-research approach using the case method. However, He (or She) must: - Adopt an opportunistic approach to evolving situations, being able to spot and seize opportunities as they arise. - Develop an obsession with the relevance of observations that focus on how actors respond in real time to unforeseen situations. - Use systematic observation strategies, of actors and their context of action and interpretation (adopt a non-directive attitude here). - Monitor biases in a posteriori reconstruction of situational data: attention bias and interpretation bias.