I try to have each of the postings of this blog stand alone,
but I am making an exception with this one.
This posting will refer to the previous one, Here We Go Loopty-Loop. In
that posting, I used a made up anecdotal story about Jane’s family in which the
relations between the family and Jane’s parents are somewhat strained. Jane, the mother in our family, has taken it upon
herself to bolster that relationship and has chosen to begin a change process
by calling a family “kitchen table” meeting in which the family, together, can
come up with a plan to achieve the aforementioned aim. I am using this narrative to illustrate some
organizational change principles in a simplified setting because I want you to
gather, at the least, some appreciation of what is called for if our school
districts were to adopt a new curricular approach to civics education. This blog is dedicated to advancing a
different perspective to civics, a perspective I have entitled federation
theory. By using a simpler environment, because
a family involves significantly fewer participants, I hope to make the change
principles more understandable.
I am advocating, much in the spirit of federation theory, a
change strategy that falls under a more general strategy type called
normative-re-educative strategies. In
this type, there is less than total reliance on either rational argument
(although rational arguments can be utilized) or coercive measures (although in
portions of a strategy, limited coercive measures might be needed). Instead, the overall aim of
normative-re-educative strategies is to change not only what change subjects
know, but also what these subjects feel and possibly what they hold as their related
values, norms, and emotions. Such a
change goes beyond changing processes and, possibly, structures. Not only are we talking about a change of
mind, but a change of heart.
To date, in my review of change theory, I have introduced the
terminology of Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon[1] which
includes the following: theories of
action, theories-in-use, espoused theories, single loop learning, double loop
learning, and governing variables. You
are invited to go back and take a look at the last few postings as I introduced
these terms and defined them.[2] But for this posting, I want to continue with
the general concern of the way one finds out how effective a particular
theory-in-use is. In the last posting, I
introduced the procedural stage of testing a theory. Testing is what one can do to see if a theory,
or more likely a part of a theory, is confirmed or disconfirmed; whether the
theory leads to desired change or not.
In reviewing testing, I will define some of these terms
again, perhaps giving those definitions a slightly different emphasis. Starting with theories of action, which
includes both espoused theories and theories-in-use, I remind you that they are
mental representations of what a person, desiring change, holds as what should
be done or what will be done. In terms
of desiring change, these theories are formulated so that the person seeking
the change can gain control. We have
comparable theories when building a bridge, treating mental illness, applying a
new technique in growing crops, or in any planned change endeavor. In each case, testing theories are prudent
and are generally part of the change process.
In my anecdote, I have Jane test her theory of action by
calling that meeting. When more formal
organizations attempt change, they test theories by using more formal
means. In effect, what is being tested
is the predictive power of the theory or theories. But the entire process of testing is plagued
with problems and being aware of them, the tester(s) can account for them and
possibly handle any deleterious consequences which would result from any
deficiencies in testing. Right away,
there are three types of problems when dealing with testing theories that are aimed
at normative change.
The first problem occurs when one is dealing with the
feelings of people – when feelings affect what one wants to believe about the
participants of the change – this will have consequences as the social dynamics
unfold. Let me illustrate. In our family example, the kids have formed
fairly established view of the type of man their maternal grandfather is. To them, he is a relic of some highly
disciplined, unyielding past with a serious lack of human concern. This is demonstrated by the mean comments he
spouts from time to time as he criticizes just about everything they do. They belittle the older man behind his back
and generally treat him with guarded tolerance and little to no warmth. This adds to the grandfather’s view of the
family and further antagonizes them although he tries to express some
affection. What we have are self-
fulfilling prophecy dynamics going in both directions. One way is bad enough – as when a teacher
believes his/her students are stupid and treats them accordingly and they
respond in kind. But when the cycle operates in both directions, testing
becomes very challenging.
There is also a problem with testing in general in that it
calls on opposite emotional postures. On
the one hand, to be successful under many change challenges (or any challenge,
for that matter), a subject is well served by being decisive, committed, and
confident. But under testing conditions,
one needs to be experimental, skeptical, and critical. This is a bit of a paradox that plagues just
about any environment in which theories of action is being tested.
A third concern occurs when one is testing a value. Remember, what one is after when proposing
changes in curricular content is changes in values. The question becomes: how do you test a value? For example, how do you test the value, as a
value, of grandparents being revered?
Let me address each of these problems and I will start with
this last problem of testing a value. Of
course, one cannot test a value directly.
Whether one values something or not is not a testable sort of
statement. I value love or trust or
loyalty or honesty; how does one even think of testing any one of these notions? Either you hold a value to any degree or you
don’t. Perhaps you value
dishonesty. If you do, one can only
speculate as to the consequences of acting on such a value, not on the value
itself – it just doesn’t make sense to do so or even try to do so. What one can do, though, is to look at those
consequences and state such a connection with an if/then proposition. I believe, along with Argyris and Schon, that
seeing the testing of value propositions from this approach provides some sort
of test. For example, I could value
talking out disagreements – let’s say between grandparent and grandchild. If so, one can ask why and propose an
answer. If we talk out our disagreements, then we can discover areas of agreement and, in turn, have a basis for
building cooperation or caring or a basis for further talk that can lead to a plan
for fostering reconciliation. What
happens is that assumptions upon which disagreements were based can come out or
be made explicit. Better still, if what
is being highlighted by the if/then statement refers to a norm, then over time
the questionable norm can begin to be addressed. Any norm which is institutionalized will not
be given up readily. Instead, by testing,
one begins a process in which the norm is challenged. A norm, such as the accepted notion that grandfather
is a seriously flawed individual, can be identified, considered, tested, and
reevaluated. It, in short, can be tested
over time. There is always the
possibility that the norm or judgement proves unyielding to review and that trying
to avoid its veracity is causing problems within the family. Then other opposing norms and values might
come into play (e.g., it is good to have stable relations within the immediate
family to have a peaceful homestead); then another test might have to be made. If attempts to generate warmer relations with
granddad are pursued, then disruptive and divisive interactions in the family
will result. In turn, this might lead to
testing the congruence between espoused theory and theory-in-use or testing the
consistency within an espoused theory or within a theory-in-use might be necessary. These kinds of testing are long-term and are
not accomplished so readily after one or two incidences of testing.
In testing theories, the next problem, self-fulling prophecy problem,
can and often does arise. Again, this occurs
when a tester holds some judgement about another participant and because of it
can see only evidence that confirms that judgement. The person who sees others in a certain,
unquestionable way and is unable to cast a critical eye on a resulting judgement
is said to have a “self-sealing” perspective.
This demands a change in the theory that person holds and this will more
likely call on some outside force or event to bring an unavoidable view of the
judgement as being an erroneous conclusion.
Let’s take the grand kids’ view of their grandfather. It is based on a great deal of interaction
with the older man. Remember, their
relationship with their paternal grandparents is very positive, but not so with
their maternal grandparents, especially mom’s dad. What if they were “forced” to see this man
from the perspective of his professional life (I established in the story that
both maternal grandparents are highly respected professionals in their
respected fields)? Perhaps the kids
could come face to face with the people gramps has helped through his career
and are exposed to the warmth and appreciation they feel for him? Would this be of such a nature that the
grandkids might start questioning their own negative feelings toward him? Perhaps so.
This outside “force” might cause their theory-in-use to fail, at least
in how it pertains to gramps. The event
providing this force is political in that it forces the kids to give up
repressing information about their grandfather – to see another side of the
older man. Repressed information does
not occur from some sinister agent; it just evolves from experiences. To undo them, though, usually takes a concerted
effort by some third party – perhaps mom in our story. Again, we are talking about time consuming
processes and in the case of some professional organization, the efforts of
trained and skilled change agents or administrators are then likely needed.
The last problem addressed in this posting has to do with the
opposing postures change testing involves:
between the need to be psychologically certain about what one is doing
and the intellectual demand for uncertainty when it comes to testing. This problem is heightened if the change
environment is unstable – e.g., what if in our story mom and dad were having marital
problems? In such situations, the
participants can be overwhelmed with information. The participants would then cease to be
guided by information, but instead make decisions based on norms – often non-reflected
ones. Norms provide a sense of certainty
when certainty is seriously lacking. At
such times, though difficult, one needs to make norms hypothetical. That is, if one can see that under current
conditions one is not succeeding, one might begin to question the norms that in
turn are providing support for a theory in action. At these times, the participant has to see
that the here-and-now, sustained problem(s), is more important than the
theory. He/she has to buy into the
notion that things are not working out.
The challenge is to sharpen one’s view of reality and identify how that
reality is counter to some or all of the elements in the theory-in-use. If placing what is currently real as a
priority is successful done, then one is free to test and have less need to
have here-and-now certainty. This is a
daunting challenge indeed and one that probably demands professional change
agent assistance if the organization is of any size and complexity. Even some family situations might call for
professional therapy to meet this demand.
These are but some of the problems change agents encounter,
especially during the testing phases of the change process. Participants in change have to develop
functional theories – either in terms of what they want to occur or in how they
go about getting it. Effectiveness means
control, and control leads to planned change.
[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] A good Internet site that reviews the work of Chris
Argyris and provides definitions for these terms is provided by Infed. See http://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyris-theories-of-action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning/ .
No comments:
Post a Comment