“HERE WE GO LOOPTY-LOOP”

It’s time to sit around the kitchen table and hash out a family problem.  The family consists of mom, dad, a son and a daughter.  Let’s view the family as an organization for a moment.  The two executives – mom and dad – have been concerned with the way the family has interacted with mom’s parents.  In the past, relations with dad’s parents have been warm and loving, but with mom’s they have been strained.  This has, in turn, caused guilt feelings and missed opportunities that healthy and positive relations with grandparents can and often provide. 

The problem seems to stem from certain past histories which have resulted in mom, let’s call her Jane, drifting away from her parents.  Why?  There are various reasons, but overall it seems to have begun when she chose to drop out of college and pursue a more spontaneous lifestyle – some might call Bohemian.  But that is all in the past; since then, she has settled down, married, and has her own kids.  She seems well-adjusted to her current life.  But she still does not have that college diploma.  She dreams of getting it someday, but now her life is too busy.  While her parents don’t bring up the lack of a degree, their demeanor communicates disapproval and whatever warmth they express have been aimed at their son-in-law and the kids.  Even there, the ties have been strained and consequently these grandparents are somewhat less favored.  Jane is determined that as part of her rehabilitation to a normal, middle class, family woman, she must fix things with her parents.  She has decided that this is not her challenge alone, but includes her husband, son, and daughter.

The above scene is not all that unique.  Insert other details and I would say that most families have had similar family meetings around the kitchen table.  In our little story, the kitchen table becomes the environment of a change-planning session.  Yes, something must change and this can be considered a case study of organizational change.[1]  Unlike big, well-endowed organizations that can hire change agents and other consultants, this case is homespun.  Be that as it may, several principles of change theory are still in effect. 

Each participant brings to the literal table a bit of baggage and that does not pertain only to Jane.  Over the years, the other members of the family have established their own habits when it comes to interacting with the grandparents in question and vice versa.  As habits, they take on a level of comfort; that is, comfortable in the sense that it’s just the way the two parties interact, but the relationship leaves our family and grandparents feeling a certain level of guilt and sorrow.  Included in these feelings can be issues of how each of the participants self-defines him or herself.  This includes questioning their self-importance.  There might be issues of competence – gramps, due to his overall disappointment, is quick to criticize not only Jane, but the rest of the family members.  This might bring up concerns of esteem and how one is viewed as possibly being incompetent or unfeeling.  The kids at the table have gotten into the habit of ridiculing their grandparents as these particular seniors reflect priorities of another time.  This can be, on the part of the kids, a self-defense mechanism.  Unfortunately, the well has been poisoned many times over.  Jane has quite a challenge ahead of her and would be well-served to become sensitive and knowledgeable about change principles of which she is probably oblivious.

Jane’s espoused theory, what she thinks about what has happened and readily offers to anyone who might ask, is that she is somewhat to blame – she did defy her parents way back when – but not to the extent that she would do any of that differently.  Oh, there was that time she shouldn’t have done so and so, but overall, she had her right to do what she basically believed was right for herself.  She might have dropped out of college, but she learned things most college educated people have not learned and today she is generally pleased with her experiences.  She doesn’t entertain the notion that it would be good for her kids to experience those lessons, but her overall approval of her past is how she believes she feels.  And, on the day of her kitchen meeting, she has at least identified the problem that needs fixing, what a change agent might call the governing variable:  her family’s relationship with her parents.

Actually, her theory-in-use (her understanding of what she is doing) in dealing with her parents has more to do with her uncomfortable, tacit notion that she is not all that smart and she does not want this deficiency exposed to these very talented parents.  Besides all of the short term benefits she perceived back when she dropped out, at a more basic level, she didn’t believe she was academically gifted enough to finish her studies.  Plans were for a liberal arts undergraduate degree that would develop into professional training at the graduate level, perhaps in medicine, law, or some technical field.  Jane’s lack of confidence is a deep-seated fear and just below the conscious level.  So, when it comes time to actually interact with her parents, Jane’s discomfort, mostly un-named, is there to disrupt what otherwise are well-intended efforts to close the gap between her and her parents and this reflects an inability to formulate functional assumptions that make up her theory-in-use. 

For their part, Jane’s parents have equally hidden emotional baggage.  While espousing a general acceptance of their daughter, they foresaw a life for her that resembles their success as highly respected professionals.  Their daughter’s “diminished” results are painful.  They love her, but she has disappointed them at a profound level, and for what – some good times and questionable relationships with “lowlifes?”  Unlike their daughter, they are very conscious of their theory-in-use but don’t know how to get over it – it’s simply too painful.  How do these participants get at the real problems?

Obviously, in terms of Jane, at least initially, she needs to spell out as well as she can her espoused theory and think about how that theory matches the quality of her interactions with her parents.  She probably needs to verbally do this review and her husband can help or maybe some good friend can listen and react:  does her values jibe with what they know and feel about the situation?  She has to be open to the idea that her verbalized theory might need changing.  As best she can, she needs to develop a planned, as opposed to a reactive, theory-in-use, one that is congruent to her espoused theory.  Even if this initial effort – the meeting – is less than sufficient or even unproductive, the mere fact that she is aware that a more reflected effort is called for is a good initial step toward effective change.  Her theory-in-use needs to include her husband and children, as apparently it does in the above scenario.  They, too, are part of the problem.  Then she needs to test; that is, implement some aspect of a derived strategy, such as holding a kitchen table meeting, and, when completed, review and make judgements as to how well that part of the theory and corresponding strategy worked.  How did the kids, for example, see the problem and did they express a realization that they need to change their disposition and behavior toward their grandparents?  Does the theory-in-use seem to be appropriate; does her strategy at least seem to be relevant to the problem; and do her assumptions of those things that need to change appear accurate – for example, are those things that she wants to change, changeable?

But what if instead of positive answers to these questions, she faces a string of negative ones?  What if her son, for example, at this meeting gets up and yells, “those old farts can just f*** off”?  Maybe the theory-in-use is simply inadequate (as a matter of fact, such an event might intensify her fear that she just isn’t smart enough).

Let’s take a step back:  there are two modes of evaluating a theory.  One is to apply it and judge whether one has applied it adequately or, perhaps, if it needs minor adjustments.   A reasonable result of testing a theory can indicate that it is working with minor changes to it.  Whether the determination is that the theory can be applied more productively or needs tweaking does not basically challenge it.  What is being judged are the actions taken within the parameters of the theory.  This, by the way, is the type of evaluation we usually conduct, but there is another type. 

The second type is looking at the theory itself.  This is a more profound type and one that can be more uncomfortable.  In our story, I believe that eventually Jane is going to have to account for her lack of confidence regarding her intelligence (or lack of it).  But this will not happen initially – it might never happen – because this element is not recognized in her theory-in-use and demonstrates how a person can have inconsistency between that theory and his/her behavioral world.  But that theory, in our story, is seriously deficient.  Yet this psychological reality which refers to her sense of being insufficiently competent seems too central to her relationship with her parents and it needs to be addressed.

When one is merely evaluating events under the auspices of some theory, one is engaging in what is called single loop learning.  A single loop learning event has been likened to a thermostat judging whether the temperature in a room is too hot or too cold.  The theory of using a thermostat is not being questioned.  But when one evaluates the theory itself, then what one is doing is called double loop learning.  When Jane called the meeting, her action was based on at least one assumption as part of her theory-in-use:  she believed that her family cared enough about their relationship with her folks to be open to a discussion that could lead to a plan for improving that relationship.  If her son demonstrates the level of hostility I just described, perhaps it is time to review her theory-in-use.  If she is as off-target as that emotional outburst would indicate, perhaps she has miscalculated the whole situation, demanding a different theory-in-use.

I will leave this story for now; my next posting will refer to it as I abstract more directly and succinctly the change principles which this narrative illustrates.

Note:  The title of this posting is a take-off on the old popular song, "Here We Go Loopty-Loo."

---

[1] The change theory principles in this posting are applied from the ideas expressed in 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.

OUTCOMES AND PROCESSES

The factors affecting organizational change are many and varied.  Assuming we are talking about a sufficiently complex organization – and a family can fit that description – to even identify problems and the location of such problems can be very difficult.  I bring this up because I am addressing with these postings of late the dynamics of planning and instituting change.  To date, I have shared my thoughts regarding general strategies of change, an individual’s cognitive and emotional postures, performance in change efforts, and, now, the holistic approaches a person sees when engaged in change.  More recently, I pointed out that a person when confronted with a change challenge develops theories regarding that change.  I identified two basic theories:  theories-in-use and espoused theories.[1]  This posting will make comments concerning the effectiveness of theories-in-use.  That is, in a situation where there is a significant organizational problem demanding a solution or, at least, amelioration, our explanations as to what needs to be done should be able to lead one to implement those process changes that result in those solutions.  If there are less than satisfactory results, in terms of the environmental factors, one should have a clear understanding of the social and psychological forces at play.  When theories-in-use become policies and subsequent behavior changes occur, it behooves those seeking change to have an honest appraisal of what’s going on not only on the part of those implementing the change, but also on those affected by the change.  Those latter subjects can be customers, clients, patients, or students.  It is students in which I am basically interested.  And it is changes in curricular efforts that I am proposing:  specifically, adoption of more federalist based content to civics instructional efforts of individual schools and school districts.  Looking at effectiveness naturally leads to consideration of the environment in which change efforts occur.

Certain ideas offered by James Q. Wilson[2] are helpful in regard to evaluation of organizational efforts.  He points out a somewhat obvious fact.  That is, organizations can be evaluated by focusing on both or either of the following:  the outcomes of what they do or the processes they perform.  Different types of organizations, by their very nature, lend themselves to one or both or neither of these foci.  Usually, corporations that produce a physical product, let us say a car company, can be evaluated by both of these areas of review.  For example, one very telling outcome is a car company’s profits and another is the dependability of its cars – how long they operate effectively, for example.  On the other hand, those privy to how the cars are manufactured can look at the different phases of production, the technology the company employs, how well the different aspects of their production and marketing process interact, etc.  But when you talk about schools, that is a different kettle of fish.

Wilson points out that schools are almost immune to such scrutiny both in terms of outcomes and processes.  For one thing, the outcomes – how effective the efforts are to educate youngsters – are often not manifested for years.  Attempts to mitigate this condition, such as end of course tests, are deficient, at best.  And the processes educators use are not so well-defined as those that go into producing a car.  I am not saying that the process is beyond any supervision or evaluation – I advocate placing monitoring cameras in the classroom so that administrators can see what is going on – but the teaching process is subtle, diverse, and resistant to systemic logic.  Often what very well “works” is unorthodox, spontaneous, and counterintuitive.  The social dynamics within a classroom are complex and challenges facing the average teacher are subject to constant change.  My wife, also a retired teacher, and I often comment that we are grateful we don’t teach in the era of social media and hand-held devices.

So the first thing, I suggest, that a change agent might want to look at when either planning or evaluating change efforts is whether the environment is amenable to viewing and judging the outcomes of the change and/or the processes of the change.  If so, what techniques and measures, if pertinent, do the agent and participants have available?  This, judgements over effectiveness, has to be attempted at each phase of the change process.  That process consists usually (and in varying order) of problem identification, change planning, change implementation, testing, and evaluation.  A serious part of that process consists of reviewing what the theories-in-use are that the participants harbor about the change effort.  This is done by asking, observing, and re-asking in an ongoing dialogue among all affected parties.  The whole evaluative effort is assisted by having clear goals and aims (more on this below).  Given that, as I established in an earlier posting, I am promoting a normative-re-educative type strategy, these conversations are essential and can be emotionally charged.  How to handle them denotes, to a great deal, how talented those in charge of facilitating the change – the change agents – are in facilitating.

In terms of working off clear goals and aims, certain techniques borrowed from the more rational strategies can be implemented.  One technique is to reduce certain aspects of the process to specific goals and objectives and to translate them into specific protocols with distinguishable steps and success points along the process; that is, break down the process to manageable and measurable accomplishments.  I once worked for a non-profit that had us do this; each success was called a “milestone.”  This is useful as long as one avoids the temptation to be “enslaved” by the language.  If the staff involved in the change effort can keep such a tool as just that, a tool, then it can be helpful to use it.  Added to the list of those things to look for is whether participants adopt such a device and lose sight of the overall demands of the change project.

In my next posting, I will return to theories-in-use effectiveness and write specifically about the signposts that determine how well they serve those engaged in a particular change effort.

---

[1] See 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] Wilson, J. Q.  (1989).  Bureaucracy:  What government agencies do and why they do it.  New York, NY:  Basic Books.