In my last posting, I played political psychologist and
proposed a modest model of how people think about acting politically. I am not a political psychologist, but I need
to assume certain mental processes in order to make my points concerning
organizational change. The proposed
mental model is based on what I have understood from the change literature I
have read. I believe that what I
outlined in my posting is not very controversial. I don’t think there is any portion of the
model that would offend more sophisticated models or theories. For example, the model does not contradict
what Robert Chin and Kenneth D. Benne[1] write
about the change strategies known as the normative-re-educative
strategies. So, let me summarize the
overall process by reviewing, in logical order and over several upcoming
postings, the factors which go into determining what action an individual takes
when confronted with a political challenge.
I want to begin adding more substance to what is being proposed.
The process begins with the mental context the individual
brings to the challenge. There is no
decision-making, at least not at the time of the challenge, in regard to this
factor. There is variance between
“degrees” within the two specific concerns this factor contains. There is the socio-cultural concern – what
are the relevant values, norms, attitudes, beliefs that the individual has acquired
from the social environment in which he/she emerges. This is the nurture factor and there is
evidence that those collective experiences have a strong influence on how a
person views the world and, consequently, behaves in that world. A popular book that speaks to this effect is Outliers written by Malcolm Gladwell.[2] Not only does this concern affect decisions,
but the lasting effect can be prominent, especially if the individual continues
to live in the “bubble” of a cultural environment in which a particular set of
relevant ideas is virulent and often cited.
For example, we currently hear about how our political society has
become divisive and that each major division of political advocacy has ceased
to listen or even hear what other positions are. More and more people just turn on media, for
example, where they hear their biases promulgated and justified – often with
questionable information that is used to support whatever position is being
promoted. At best, this source of
information is the product of “cherry-picking” the facts that are convenient to
the partisan positions being espoused.
There is less straight-forward news and more biased sources of news
accounts. As such, a certain form of
arrogance is at play: “after all, I know
the truth.”
The other concern of this factor is genetic inheritance. I described this concern as being referred to
as “how a person is wired.” Popularly,
this concern is the nature part of the nature vs. nurture question. How much is our genetic makeup responsible
for how we behave – as opposed to the environmental forces around us we term as
nurturing? This question has received
extensive research and a lot of money to conduct that research. We don’t know much as a result. What we do know, from twin studies, is that
genes do affect personality and, consequently, behavior. It is estimated that genes account for 40% of
identical twins’ personalities. What
researchers have not been able to determine is the genetic chemical compounds
that contribute to which personality traits a subject exhibits.[3] For my purposes, this is not so important –
at least, I don’t appreciate the importance.
What is important is to be able to identify behavioral patterns that can
be attributed to genetic inheritance.
Why? This is important because if
one can identify the patterns, one knows that the individual has little control
over the presence of such forces and planning can then plan accordingly. While genetic factors are influential, they
do not necessarily dictate behavior.
Genetic factors are influences, not determinants, assuming the person is
not suffering from such strong influences that what is being dealt with is a
mental disorder needing professional therapy.
Short of that, genetically induced biases can be discussed, analyzed,
and negotiated so that the subject can perform the necessary actions in order
to implement agreed upon change.
A change agent need not be a therapist, but he/she does need
to be sensitive to what is. As much as
that agent can learn about not only the genetic concerns affecting behavior,
but also the cultural and social backgrounds of those involved, the more
prepared that agent can be. This knowledge
includes these personal traits as well as the technical aspects of what the
change necessitates. In the next posting,
I will begin looking at the factors affecting the actual instances when change
processes are taking place and individuals are deciding how they will act.
[1]
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.
[2]
Gladwell, M.
(2008). Outliers. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
[3]
Kraus, M. W.
(2013). Do genes influence
personality? A summary of recent
advances in the nature vs. nurture debate.
Psychology today, see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201307/do-genes-influence-personality .
No comments:
Post a Comment