I have of late been reviewing some ideas concerning change
theory. My reason for this has been to
address the challenge of introducing and having schools adopt federation theory
as the source of content in their civics’ classrooms. You are invited to take a look at the last
ten postings or so in which I have looked at change from the perspective of the
individual and, more recently, from the vantage point of a change
environment. As I have ventured into the
dynamics of change, I have looked at how the individual, a change operator,
relates to that environment. I have written
about how those involved with change are motivated by what they want to
accomplish – espoused theory – and how, once such a theory is formulated to any
degree, they will go about developing a theory-in-use which describes and
explains how the sought-after change is to be accomplished. Together, espoused theories and theories-in-use
are known as action theories.
Action theories are what those who want to implement change hold
to guide their behavior. To the extent
the individual is able to instigate change, he/she creates a behavioral world –
the environment in which the efforts of change occur. In this posting, I want to address three
realms within that environment: one, the
realm in which the theory-in-use is applied, two, the perceived behavioral
world the change actor creates, and three, the ongoing dynamic environment
perceived by others. These realms are
what the change operator deals with as he/she attempts to accomplish his/her
goal(s).
In previous postings, I have described how Chris Argyris and
Donald A. Shon[1]
advise us that, in order to promote successful change, one should have
consistency within a particular action theory and congruence between an espoused
theory and a theory-in-use when attempting to implement change. This is difficult, and I address incongruence
between an espoused theory and a theory-in-use below. Now, I want to draw your attention to the
interaction between the identified realms above.
To do this, let me first quote Argyris and Shon:
Theories of action are theories that
can be expressed as follows: In
situation S, if you intend consequence C, do A, given assumptions a1 . .
. an . Theories of action
exist as espoused theories and as theories-in-use, which govern actual
behavior.
A person who is trying to institute change does not get to
that point spontaneously. He/she first
sees and/or feels that something needs changing. In this blog, I, for example, have argued
that federation theory should replace the natural rights construct as the
predominate source of content for our civics curriculum. That statement emanates from an espoused
theory I harbor in my mind. It motivates
me to think: how does that change in
curriculum happen? As in most cases in
which change depends on public policy, there has to be a certain amount of
public support. There are other things
that have to happen, but let me limit my comments to the function of action
theories. In order to proceed toward
accomplishing this aim, I need a strategy.
That strategy needs to account for the practical realities – as I see
them – in the environment. These, even
in the simplest and most modest occasions, are probably many and complex. I recently, in this blog described how a
family wants to improve its relationship with the maternal grandfather and how
complex that sort of change can be.
Therefore, a new theory develops and, at minimum, outlines a
strategy in order to accomplish what I want to achieve. As Argyris and Shon denote above, I develop a
theory-in-use which contains my strategy.
There are times when perceived realities force or, at least, encourage a
devised theory-in-use to diverge from an espoused theory. I described this eventuality, in a previous
posting, as “sinning.” I used this term
to point out that the individual who does diverge in this way is betraying what
he/she has espoused as his/her beliefs.
The word hypocrisy comes to mind, but practicalities cannot be dismissed
so easily. To accomplish any level of
success, one might need to compromise on the demands of an espoused theory. But one should be warned that he/she who diverges
from stated beliefs must face consequences either in terms of falling short of
initial goals or sacrificing some aspect of what motivated the relevant change
behavior in the first place.
Let me return to the above, identified realms. Overt behaviors reflect, first of all, the first
realm: application of a
theory-in-use. In my example, my theory-in-use
called for me to identify a platform by which I could communicate – espouse –
my theory of what I believe should change in terms of civics curriculum. That theory identifies writing a blog as a
behavior I can carry out which would communicate a rationale and a promotion
for what my espoused theory holds as something worthwhile. The assumptions include that public policy,
which includes our public schools’ curricular choices, is encouraged by public
support for a particular policy choice.
But part of my theory-in-use has little to do with this public-spirited,
espoused theory. In addition, it has to
do with my having an interesting and entertaining pastime in my retirement
years. That part of the theory is backed
up by another espoused theory, one that promotes a healthy approach to
retirement. The point is that in order
to be successful, one needs to have sufficient consistency within theories of
action and congruence among the theories that are relevant to a particular
change effort. I am not making unwarranted
claims here; I understand that success relies on talent, resources, and timing,
but essential to any change effort is clear thinking and motivations guiding
that effort.
Experiences, as one goes about implementing a theory-in-use,
generate evaluative information which, in turn, communicates to oneself how the
espoused theory and the theory-in-use functions in the real world. But in reality, when one judges the effects
of implementing theory, one needs to remember that that judgement is one’s
perception of that reality. That is the
second realm I identify above. Often,
when change is attempted, those involved fail to hold their perceptions,
attitudes, and even values in a sufficiently critical perspective. In the second realm above, the one in which
the change operator functions, he/she needs to be able to objectify what he or
she sees, hears and otherwise senses is happening. Self-criticism in this effort is a skill which
a change operator should seriously develop.
The last realm in a change environment is the social dynamic
that ensues once the change process begins.
These social interactions occur for the change operator within his/her
behavioral world. This realm opens up an
entire other set of factors which affect how successful the change effort will
be. For example, if I am a civics teacher
in a school and become sold on the idea (i.e., it becomes part of my espoused
theory) to adopt federation theory as my source for content, I would probably begin
using federalist content under the overall structure used in my school’s civics
curriculum. This might compromise the “purity”
of that content, but it would be a way of easing its adoption. Up to this point, the important “others’
perspectives” I would be concerned with those views of my students, their
parents, and possibly school site administrators overseeing the curricular
issues of the school. Their feedback – which
reflect their perceptions – would provide me important information about the
change I am implementing. If some
minimum level of success is met which is enough to convince me that my effort
is worthwhile, I might deem it wise to attempt to broaden my effort and convince
other civics teachers to join me. This
would broaden those perceptions that become essential sources of information in
assisting my efforts. Again, I would be
well-served to remember that that information reflects perceived reality, not
necessarily the complete reality. Each
participant brings his/her own demeanors, filters, modes, options, and
tenor. Each is a participant reflecting
complex factors that will affect how he/she interacts with the change process
and its demands.
For a teacher so motivated, this can be both exciting and
frustrating. One obstacle to change is
expectations. Students who enter a
course have preconceived notions as to what the course is about. Not meeting those expectations, especially
when changes are associated with challenging tasks, can be questioned in terms
of the effort’s legitimacy. Therefore, the
perceptions of others become very important.
Pre-explanations and a bit of selling might be needed. One should not shy from such preparations. If nothing else, having to explain yourself
to others aids in grasping the substance of one’s change effort in a more
thorough way.
[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.
