Change begets
change. Even those who are conservative
and attached to the way things are, when confronted with change will have to initiate
their own change in order to keep things as they were, at least, as best they
can. In my last posting, I identified
the function of adaptability as essential to polities – and other collectives. Polities need to adopt to changes either in
their environments or within their internal organizations. In order to analyze whether a given group is
adapting, one needs to study the group and I suggested, in my last posting, a
list of questions one could ask of the group.
In this posting, I want to add several more questions to this list that
focus on the challenges a group confronts in dealing with its own change
efforts.
These added
questions are based on a concern over the challenges that purposeful change
causes. That is, when a segment of the
group takes it upon itself to institute change, there are factors and issues that
should be accounted for. I will discuss
this topic in future postings. Let me
just state that there exists a whole literature about this topic. I will review some of that work, but here I want
to limit my concern about an often overlooked human deficiency. It is usually assumed that people do what
they believe to be best, that they follow their beliefs in what is true and
behave in accordance with those beliefs.
But what is overlooked is that what one knows or believes to be true can
be and often is in conflict with either the “facts on the ground” or
unaccounted for emotional ties and biases.
In other words, a person can develop a rational course of action and yet
behave in another way. As I wrote in the
past:
This distinction between
what is espoused and what is done I have been somewhat aware of for a long
time, but it wasn't until graduate school that this duality became clear. In an
interesting article by Chris Argyris and Donald A. Schon,[1]
the authors present a model for organizational planning and action. In the
model, they distinguish between “espoused theory” and “theory-in-use.” Espoused
theory corresponds, more or less, with what I have termed domain of the ideal –
those values and goals we hold as preferable at a time away from the actual
implementation of those values and goals. Theory-in-use is the dominant beliefs
[and I will add here, unaccounted emotions] we hold when it comes time to act. For
example, let us say an organization decides to perform an activity that will be
held with some disfavor by the pupil, client, or customer population the
organization serves. Those promoting the activity believe that in the long run
this action will be best for their charges despite the short term annoyance or
even hatred it will engender. The staff commits to it and each person knows
that there will be a negative response. They might even begin their efforts in
a way congruent with the plan, but as the predicted response increases, they
cave-in and, in order not to be disliked, revert to the previous courses of
action.[2]
This
distinction between an espoused theory and a theory-in-use leads me to add to
my list of questions over adaptability.
The added questions are:
How well can
a group’s policy-makers determine what is true?
How realistic
are a group’s espoused views of reality?
How much are
a group’s espoused theories in accordance to the group’s theory-in-use?
To the degree
a group’s espoused theories are in conflict with their theory-in-use, what
level of tension is created within the group and how well do they manage this
tension?
What happens
to the group’s ability to adapt if the chasm between espoused theories and
theory-in-use is of a meaningful level?
To remind you, this whole concern over adaptability
stems from this blog’s emphasis to promote federalist theory as a guiding
construct by which to study civics. With
this posting, I continue looking at how civics instructional materials can
analyze group efforts from the perspective of that group implementing the
action that will insure its viability to do those things it was formed to
do. That is, how does a group meet
requisite functions? To date, we have
looked at two functions: producing and
adapting. I am relying on the work of Samuel P. Huntington[3] to
identify the functions that a federated group needs to satisfy to be viable and
even survive.
[1]Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A. (1985). Evaluating theories in
action. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change, Fourth edition, (pp. 108-117). New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
[2] This quoted material is taken from a posting, The Possibility of Incongruence, March 19,2012. The posting has been deleted from this blog
site, but it can be seen through request.
See the blog site, GravitasArchives.blogspot.com for directions on how
to get a copy.
[3] Huntington, S. P.
(1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment