We have another tragedy on our hands – the shooting in
Oregon. I have visited Oregon. It is a beautiful state with its majestic
pine trees. I will not get into the
political question about what should be done concerning the recurrence of such
shootings. I have addressed the issue in
the past when I tried to document the levels of criminality in our nation. Should we limit the number of guns out
there? Should we do something about the
mental illness factor that some have blamed for such attacks? Should we distribute enough guns so that just
about everyone is armed and able to defend him/herself? Or should we do nothing? Up to date, it’s been the fourth choice. I am focusing on this because as unfortunate as
the Oregon tragedy is, it does provide a context on which to address the need
for change. We need change in how we are
addressing this recurring problem. And
it is not just a matter of these mass shootings, but the whole concern over
deaths caused by the use of guns. We are
by far the most murderous advanced nation.
In 2013, there were over 30,000 deaths due to the use of guns (a third
of them by homicide, two-thirds by suicide).
Compared to other advanced countries, we have the highest level of gun
related deaths per 100,000 population.
We should institute change in our approach to this problem area if we
want to have fewer deaths. But
considering it just a by-product of being a nation with a Second Amendment: that doesn’t sit well.
But change is difficult, especially when we are talking about
a national change in which there are strongly held biases that see such change
as threatening and when the status quo financially helps a vested, national
commercial interest. This is when
knowledge is power and, more specifically, when knowing about how planned
change takes place or how successful change agents do their work is useful. It is useful to at least understand what it
takes to change whatever needs to change so that we have a different response to
our “gun problem.”
I promised in the last posting that I would give you a short
survey of change strategy types. I feel
that knowing about these strategies is a good first step in becoming
knowledgeable about planned change. Let
me introduce this by pointing out that in the literature, there are quite a few
surveys about existing change strategies.
This reflects the fact that there are many of these strategies out there
in the literature and being applied by different organizations – businesses,
governments, and non-government service organizations. The survey I am sharing is very short but,
before I share it, I will briefly mention a few other surveys – which are more
extensive and more telling of the variety of strategies about which one can
become informed. Robert R. Blake and
Jane Srygley Mouton review twenty-five different strategies in their article, “Strategies
of Consultation” in the book, The
Planning of Change, edited by Bennis, Benne, and Chin. Another survey is provided by Kenneth D.
Benne in his article, “The Current State of Planned Changing in Persons,
Groups, Communities, and Societies;” it reviews a large array of approaches to
change and is also in the book, The
Planning of Change. This book was
published in 1985. A more recent survey
can be found in Andrianna J. Kezar’s monograph, Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st
Century, in the chapter entitled, “Theories and Models of Organizational
Change.” This 2001 published survey
reviews six categories.[1] The one I am sharing has only three
categories and, as one might expect, the categories are more general and
encompassing. While this is true, I think
it works well to entice one to look further into the literature.
The three categories offered by Robert Chin and Kenneth D.
Benne are empirical-rational strategies, normative-re-educative strategies, and
power-coercive strategies. Let me
describe each briefly.
Empirical-rational approach relies on one basic assumption. That is, human beings are rational and they
will act in accordance with pursuing their rational self-interest. The challenge to instituting change,
therefore, is to devise options that will better meet the self-interests of the
parties who are being asked to change and to inform them of those options and
how they advance those interests. In
terms of normative-re-educative strategies, they do not deny the effects of
rational and knowledgeable decision-making, but in addition attempt to account
for “[s]ociological norms and by commitments on the part of individuals to
these norms.”[2] As for power-coercive strategies, the
assumption is that people will respond to coercive power; that is, they will
act in ways that are different from the ways in which they have been behaving
in order to avoid punishment.
Those three approaches to change reflect three different
views on human behavior. Without delving
into the differences too far, one can see that the empirical-rational approach
mirrors the behavioral school of psychology.
It is one way to implement “engineering” social processes – which I mentioned
a couple of postings ago – to social problems.
Normative-re-educative strategies are more in line with “clinical”
processes – also previously mentioned – and are concerned with feelings and
emotionally based relationships. Finally,
power-coercive methodologies are based on authority – legitimate power
positioning – and are mostly concerned with large systems such as nations or
large corporations. As with what I had
to say with the use of coercive power, concerns over resentment are one
potential cost, but are available when change is utterly essential and relentless
factors, such as time, are in play.
There is more to share with each of these types, but I hope that this
brief introduction entices you to want to know more about planned change. Again, knowledge of such social dynamics is
essential to meeting the challenges, such as our “gun” problem, which face us
today.
[2]
Chin, R. and Benne, K. D. (1985).
General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin
(Eds.), The Planning of Change (pp.
22-45). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. Citation on p. 23.
No comments:
Post a Comment