How does the individual make decisions when confronted with a
political challenge? By political
challenge, I am specifically writing about situations in which the individual
is either being “asked” to behave in ways he/she would not act otherwise or is
“asking” someone else or some other group to act in ways he/she/they would not
behave otherwise. In other words, the
individual is being exposed to an exercise in power or attempted power. Asking can take several forms but in all
cases when the change alters how someone does something, power is being exerted.
The exertion of power, by definition, entails change. Change always causes an excitement that can
be positive (“boy, I’m glad/relieved/looking forward to doing it that way”) or
negative (“no way,” “even if you pay me,” “you got the wrong guy”). Since change is more often than not resisted,
looking at this process benefits from assuming the negative reaction. Change agents, people who are trained to
enforce or entice compliance with change policies in an organization, are hired
because it is assumed there will be a certain level of resistance to a planned
change. Sometimes those plans are well
defined; other times they are only outlines or vague desires for change. Whatever strategy is chosen to perhaps
develop and/or implement change, it is enhanced by having a good understanding
of what the subject (the planned-for) thinks and feels during the process of
change. In modern times, it has become
more and more unacceptable and unanticipated that any strategy employed will depend
solely on coercion; that is, on securing compliance based on an anticipated
punishment, at least within legitimate organizational settings. This further complicates the process, but it
promises compliance which will be of higher quality and longer lasting. It also promises to reduce policing costs;
people who act more from internal motivations need less supervision. But, again, such eventualities demand
planners be knowledgeable of what the planned-for is going through, both cognitively
and emotionally.
In my efforts to portray what happens mentally to a person
confronted with a change challenge, I designed a “process.” The last four postings have been about this
process. In my presentation, I have
tried to follow a logical progression in describing that process. The problem is, though, that what happens in
the mind does not follow a logical progression.
Instead, the process is more like a rumble or tumble, a fight between
images and emotions. What comes out of
the process is more like a quantum reaction; yes, there are rules governing the
process, but there is a chance – an unpredictable – quality to it. How we respond as the events of a political
confrontation unfold is hard to predict even by the very person being analyzed. Some individuals are more disciplined, less
emotional, and more cerebral than others.
But even for them, if the events lean toward the more extreme in terms
of perceived danger or other threats, reactions can be of a more spontaneous
variety. We all can recall times when we
allowed our emotions to “take over.” We
probably regret them. Sometimes we might
boastfully claim that we would act that way again. I believe such claims are often attempts to
put the best face forward or what we perceive to be the best. But whatever is going on, the tenor of our
responses toward a particular stimulus in the change process reveals what
forces won the rumble.
Here, I want to borrow the ideas of Thomas A. Harris. He published a book[1] in the
late 1960s that became somewhat of an occult bible. I’m OK,
You’re OK is a book that presents a simplified version of psychiatric
forces that come into play as a person matures and interacts with others. I use it here not as a source of powerful
psychiatric theory or protocol, but more as a source of language. Harris’s “parent”-“adult”-“child” terms fit
nicely with the last phase of decision-making; that is, when the person
actually determines what behavior he/she will execute in the moment of
interaction with others. The important
element I am concerned with is whether the interaction – the communication – will
continue or be cut off; will an interaction be productive toward desired change
or be counterproductive or neutral? In
this, the tenor one adopts at this moment will have a determining effect on
which of these possibilities will occur.
In my next posting, I will look at the environment in which interactions
take place, but for now, let us just say that our individual under analysis is
interacting with others. Others, be it
one person or a group, have their own processes going on, their own
rumbles. The tenor our individual
chooses, be it a parent tenor, an adult tenor, or a child tenor, will confront
the tenor of others. In this dynamic,
Harris points out what will happen, generically, if any one of the different
possibilities takes place; that is, for example, if a person who chooses a
parent tenor confronts another person with a parent tenor. But before going through these possibilities,
let us look at what each of them means.
A parent tenor is one in which the person comes across as
communicating an unquestionable bit of information or ideal. A common example would be: “always look both ways before crossing a
street.” Most often, the communication
is in the form of a command or of some law, factoid, or postulate. It is said with a tone of authority. The desired effect of such a tenor is that
the receiver of the communication should accept it as truth or prudence without
questioning its validity or veracity.
An adult tenor is one in which the person comes across as
communicating a reasoned, reflected, perhaps calculating bit of information,
suggestion, question, or some other considered message the sender sees as
relevant to the topic under discussion.
Often the message contains a qualifier as “in my opinion…,” “studies
show…,” “perhaps, the best thing to do is …”
It is assumed, when using this tenor, that while the communicator might
enjoy some authority in the exchange, he/she is open to discussion,
questioning, negotiating, or some other further conversation.
A child tenor is one in which the communicator expresses
mostly impulsive reactions. Here, the
message has a spontaneous quality and tends to be more extreme in its emotional
content. Positive messages are more
positive (“I just love that”; “this is the greatest time I’ve ever had”, etc.).
On the other hand, negative messages are
more negative (“I just hate you”, “this is the worst time I’ve ever had”,
etc.). While the communication might
sound rebellious against authority, the implied relation is that the
communicator is taking on a supplicant role – it assumes another has authority
in the interaction.
Now let’s look at the different combinations:
If a person in a confrontation uses a parent tenor with
someone also taking a parent tenor, this is what Harris indicates is a parallel
interaction and parallel interactions tend to continue – they feed on
themselves. Unless both agree, the
authoritative pronouncements from both are at odds and no solution can be
derived from the interaction. This is
counterproductive.
If a person in a confrontation uses an adult tenor with
someone who also takes an adult tenor, this is considered a parallel
interaction and will continue. This
takes place until both come to an agreement and a solution to the confrontation
is achieved. This is productive.
If a person in a confrontation uses a child tenor with
someone who also takes a child tenor, this is considered a parallel interaction
and will continue. Well, it continues
until exhaustion or boredom or utter disgust convinces one or both parties to
call it quits. Here we have an “oh,
yeah…” reaction in which what follows is one-upmanship. If the initial communication is positive,
expect an even more effusive compliment in return; however, if the initial
communication is negative, expect a higher level of antagonism in return. This is counterproductive.
There is one more parallel possibility: parent-child interaction in which one person
takes on an authoritative posture and the other a child demeanor. “Do so and so” says the parent; “make me”
says the child. Again, as a parallel
interaction, it continues unproductively unless the “parent” can administer a
punishment or threat of punishment severe enough to induce reluctant compliance
on the part of the “child.” Again, this
will most likely prove to be inefficient and possibly unsuccessful, especially
as the authoritative posture wears off.
Those interactions that are non-continuing are those
involving an adult tenor with either a parent or child tenor. Here, hopefully, the adult can reason with
the parent or child and get that other tenor to change to an adult tenor
also. If so, the interaction becomes
productive, leading to a solution that might be the product of being convinced
or both parties hitting upon a negotiated solution.
Harris illustrates the language of an interaction being
parallel or not by his lining up the three tenors vertically and mirroring that
arrangement by another set of the three.
Using the initials of the three, P-A-C, if you have a parent interacting
with another parent, two arrows of communication result which are
parallel. This works out for each
combination unless an adult interacts with a parent or child, in which case the
arrows intersect and are not parallel.
This is not meant as a highly sophisticated model, but as representation
anyone can apply in analyzing what is happening when two or more parties
interact in a political confrontation.
For a teacher who is part of an internal change team within a school, it
is a simple enough model to use when actively trying to collaborate with
colleagues to develop or implement a change.
