A great bulk of this blog’s
treatment of change, its current interest, deals with issues that one can
associate with interpersonal dynamics. The
preceding postings of this blog has been reviewing a set of phases an
organizational change process might have.
In terms of the phases being reviewed, those set of activities
identified as “negotiating” has to do with how a change agent interacts or
should interact with a school’s staff.
The
next phase, “conflict ameliorating,” (the topic of the next posting) addresses
how a change agent interacts with individual staff members. The first, negotiating, is the topic of this
posting. What distinguishes these two
phases from the other phases of the change model, upon which this treatment is
based, is the shift to more psychological concerns.
Negotiating
Any
proposed change – especially if the change involves a long-standing policy –
will have its detractors. Again, as
stated earlier in this blog, things are the way they are for a reason or set of
reasons and often the reason(s) bolster the interests of significant staff
members. If nothing else, change calls on
people having to deal with extra work.
This is true even if over time the change will be more efficient and is
a labor-saving innovation.
Often the change includes unknowns –
even unknown unknowns. That is to say: there are usually unaccounted for consequences,
unforeseeable results from changes that only time will reveal. Any staff member who has just about any
amount of experience will have had those experiences that demonstrate this
upsetting quality associated with change.
One
has heard sayings – such as, “leave good enough alone” – that betray this bias
against change. So why be so committed
to change? Reasons vary among
organizations. If a business is
involved, a lack of profits might motivate change; in terms of a governmental
institution, such as public schools, accumulated evidence pointing to a lack of
success might lead to increased demands for change.
Having stated that, that does leave
one with dealing with the natural tendencies of how people interact under
various levels of pressure which change usually causes. And this brings up how individuals see their
world. This includes what this blog has
addressed in its treatment of change factors. This includes the complex web of
brain functions (System 1 and System 2 thinking), perceptions (the real, the
ideal, and the physiological domains), the political stage (be it an arena or a
square), and modes of communication (parent-adult-child modes). These are factors that this blog had addressed.
All
of this is a dynamic, most of the time jumbled, and difficult to visualize. For example, in terms of the perception
domains (the real, the ideal, and the physiological), the following was
described earlier in this blog.[1] Here is a restatement of that description:
·
The domain of the real is what the
individual, mostly through his/her senses, sees as the physical and emotional
aspects of a given situation – the current or past state-of-affairs. This includes any relevant recollections the
individual has. What the person senses
is real will vary from what is real since the human capacity of recording
reality accurately is far from perfect.
·
The domain of the ideal is what the
individual holds should be real. That
is, the person is apt to project onto any situation a sense of what the
situation ought to have been, what it ought to be, and/or what it ought to
become. Such evaluations are based on
the attitudes, norms, and values the person has either inherited from his/her
culture or the influences of other current associations such as family members,
friends, workmates, etc. or what the “lessons” of life experiences has “taught”
the individual. The prevailing media
also can and, in many cases, has an influence.
At
times, the individual has developed his/her own set of preferences by
reflecting on life in general or on relevant situations from the person’s
past. In any event, the individual who
is affected – emotionally snared by a situation – will respond with a notion or
two about what should have been, should be, and/or should become that is
relevant to the situation.
·
And the last domain, the physiological,
relates directly to the contextual aspects of the genetic inheritance the
person carries along with him/her. A
perhaps silly example would be if the person is confronted with a change
expectation by an attractive, sexually desirable person. He/she might be disposed to at least listen
to the proposal if for no other reason than to extend contact with such a
messenger.
In
this type of situation, what is popularly referred to as “hormonal” influences,
kick in and affect subsequent behavior.
Of course, this type of influence takes on many different guises and
often the subject might not be conscious of the physiological influences being
engaged. Madison Avenue counts on this
factor.
Often, behaviors are not thought out,
but instinctive reactions as System 1 thinking, the lazy mental fallback,
usually determines how one behaves.
Under negotiating, the aim is to view this overall platform and plan and
implement negotiating strategies that best meet these tumultuous forces.
How
well is a change agent expected to perform with such tumult. A change agent, in his/her negotiating
efforts, is probably not going to get it right initially. He/she will fall short of what he/she is
trying to accomplish through a give and take process. One works at his/her strategy, tries it,
evaluates it, and gets better at it.
Practice might not make perfect, but it tends to make better.
What
this blog offers is an overview of what the factors are and, by doing so,
suggests certain avenues to pursue in this endeavor. Negotiating takes various forms. These forms, when considered in terms of
their actions, suggest a progression.
One
form is discussion. Here the
participants simply express opinions and, at least, support those positions
with facts. The aim of discussion is not
to convince others, but to inform them what the speaker's preferences are. Pains should be taken not to come across too
aggressive and to communicate that the agent simply wants to talk about what
ails the school. It is also a way to
introduce pertinent facts affecting whatever deficiencies is the subject of the
concern.
The
second form is argument – not heated argument, but expressions of opposite
opinions compared to some other participant.
Argument also calls for supportive evidence, but in addition will provide
generalizations or principles that logically connect the facts to the
conclusion one is promoting. In other
words, these statements warrant the connection.
Argument is a further step that takes on some rigor and reflects logical
thinking.
And
the third form is debating. This is a
formal activity and is set up with judge(s) to determine which side wins the
argument or determines what will be done.
Debating – and this goes for the other forms – is deliberative. That is, the aim is to determine what should
be done, not the forensic aim of determining who or what was responsible for a
problem situation. In debating, not only
are facts, warrant statements, and conclusions included, but also backing for
the warrant, and reservations and/or qualifications are included.
It
should be noted that organizations, both private and public, have introduced formal
debating into their deliberations. They
encourage a staff to be specific, nuanced, and targeted. Their aim is to determine whether the staff
should go in one direction or another.
It also calls for interested parties to delineate what they perceive policy
should contain. Further, they are called
upon to defend that position.[2]
In
all this, an agent tries to utilize Aristotle’s three qualities of good
argumentation: ethos, pathos, and
logos. Ethos is the character of the
arguer; pathos is the emotions an argument elicits; and logos is logical reasoning
called upon in constructing the promoted position.[3] As one progresses from discussion to arguing
to debating (if it gets that far), these qualities are more essential in
securing success and in being responsible in the effort.
