“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. 

SOURCES OF SINNING

I have been writing about the demands one faces when contemplating or actually implementing change, particularly change in an organization, such as a school.  My reason for looking at this topic is that this blog is dedicated to having our schools approach civics content from a different perspective from how it is viewed today. 

I have written a great deal describing the prevailing mental construct which governs our current view.  That construct I have called the natural rights construct and it is based philosophically on the tenets of classical liberalism.  The main governing variable of that construct is liberty and the belief that every individual has the right to determine his or her own values and has the rights to pursue those values.  The problem is not so much the belief, but the centrality of it; advocates of the natural rights construct hold it as their trump value when it comes to governmental and political issues.  This blog has attempted to document what problems have been created due to this centrality. 

The blog has gone on to argue that in its place, as a dominant construct, our schools should adopt federation theory as their dominant construct.  This latter construct espouses a heightened allegiance to liberty, but not as a trump value.  Instead, federation theory holds societal welfare – as experienced through societal survival and societal advancement – as its trump value.  This other view, I believe, is more in line with our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  This position has been developed over many postings – postings that first appeared in 2011.[1] So, in order to adopt federation theory, schools would have to engage in change.  Hence, my concern now has been and will continue to be:  what all is involved in making a profound curricular change in our public schools?

Each person involved with such an endeavor brings to the effort a loaded slate (as opposed to a blank slate).  A main challenge in what I am proposing is a change that, in order to be successful, needs to be instituted by “believers” and “doers” of the change.  Therefore, people can’t be ordered to institute this other view of civics content.  Such an attempt would not work and whatever strategy is utilized to institute the change must be seen as the appropriate thing to do by those who are the “doers” of the change.  They have to be convinced, not in a mild way, but in a thorough way.  And further, those who are to implement the change need not only be believers of the change, but also need to follow through with their behavior.  I point this out because we often act contrary to what we believe is right.  In this posting, I call this deviation “sinning.”

A bit of a backdrop:  In my previous posting, I wrote about how a person, in order to make sense of how he/she feels about a particular challenge, forms a theory.  In that posting, I more specifically described a theory-in-action.  We are so adept at forming these theories that, through our behavior, we create what Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon[2] call a behavioral world.  That is, we are so coordinated and consistent that we form a sort of perceived reality based on the theory we create in our minds and then the behavior that follows.  This, in turn, creates a sort of world in which a person functions.  Whether this world reflects a true reality or not (or to what degree it is true) is dependent on how we experience rewards and punishments derived from that world view.  For example, have you ever had a friendship in which the friend no longer wants to continue the friendship and without telling you why, drifts away?  Befuddled, you wonder why, but you accept the “divorce” without inquiring what happened – you just don’t want to experience the awkwardness.  Chances are your behavioral world concerning this person didn’t match the behavioral world of that person when it comes to dealing with you.  One or another of you had perceptions of reality that were off – perhaps both of you were incorrect.  Behavioral worlds are created as we act upon our theories-in-use.  But problems with perceptions and behaviors do not end there.  There is also a potential gap between our theories-in-use and espoused theories.

Espoused theories are what prominently emanate from the mental domain I have called the ideal domain – that portion of our thinking and feelings that contain all those messages about how things should be.  Either through what we have been taught to be good and evil – our inherited sense of morality – or through our life’s experiences, we form our sense of what is right and what is rightness, the “shoulds” and “oughts.”  We don’t believe only this, but when the occasion arises, we proclaim the elements of this view – our espoused theories.  These theories are subject, as I wrote about in my last posting, to internal inconsistencies and certain encounters with reality will arise that make these inconsistencies apparent.  See my last posting for a description of internal inconsistencies.  My concern here is when there is a lack of congruence between an espoused theory and a theory-in-use, i.e., sinning.

When we become conscious of such an incompatibility, we might first try to rationalize.  We might say that the theory-in-use element and the elements of our espoused theory don’t really relate or that any incompatibility is the fault of others or that the element is not that central to our views of right and wrong or that the situation is incompatible at some level but compatible at a more important level.  One more potential rationalization:  incompatibility is unavoidable and a person might say, “I just had to choose the lesser of two evils” – he or she is just doing his/her best.  And while we are at it, there is always the possibility that one is just ignorant of all the relevant facts affecting the situation or they have not occurred to us at the time.  Any of these excuses might be correct, but one needs to be very careful because we are prone to believe what eases any dissonance we might be experiencing.    Complicated, this thing we call life.

But let us say we are honest, know all the relevant facts, and have a clear understanding of how relatively important all the factors are.  Yet the incompatibility persists.  In that case, change is called for.  This can be of our theory-in-use or in our espoused theory.  We want both to be right:  the former because practical consequences offer up painful punishments; the latter because we are concerned about how we perceive ourselves.  In the course of such changes – changes that can be very central to how we see the world – it helps to have a good dose of self-worth.  A lack of such self-esteem can block any portion of this process.  For example, we might just figure that what we believe, as a lowly person, doesn’t matter.

Congruence can be good or bad.  It can, for example, promote inadequate theories.  As such, incompatibility will help to make these inadequacies apparent.  Once perceived, one can act to create a healthier congruence.  Argyris and Schon point out that of the two, it is better to have an adequate espoused theory because with having one, we can more readily identify and rectify an inadequate theory-in-use.

It is precisely this insight that leads me to believe we need to change our governing construct of civics education, because a move toward federation theory will be one that addresses the contents of our espoused theories concerning government and politics.  I see this move as beneficial for the betterment of our social world and for the betterment of our students’ behavioral worlds.

---

[1] If you are new to this blog, you are invited to sample some of them by hitting the archives button.  The first two hundred postings have been deleted, but one can gain access to them by visiting gravitasarchives.blogspot.com .  At that site, you will be instructed as to how to attain a particular posting.  The last two hundred or so postings can be accessed by hitting the archives button on this page.

[2] 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.

LACK OF INTERNAL CONSISTENCY

When dealing with change, at the stages of either planning or implementation, in a social organization such as a school, one can usually count on a certain amount of tension.  This is because change by its nature is veering a person or a group away from what is customary and oftentimes comfortable to what is new and unknown.  When this type of change happens at the workplace, many normative and coercive forces are potentially at play.  Even when management runs on humanistic principles, the employee is not likely to forget he or she is at work and the boss is watching with expectation.  This is true in even the most laid back work environments.

In previous postings, I have tried to communicate that the above unsettling situation makes it difficult for one to be “normal” in conducting the interactions of the day.  Given that even in the most normal of conditions, we all, from time to time, act in ways that we cannot explain even to ourselves, much less to others.  When tension levels increase, we can count that the number of times such inconsistent behaviors occur will more than likely increase, sometimes significantly.  I use the term inconsistent advisedly because inconsistency is a prevailing concern among those who deal with change professionally.  But before I expand, let me relate a short anecdote that I think makes the point.

I heard a story the other day about a man I have met once or twice, but cannot say I know very well.  A mutual friend told me this person has a phobia concerning cleaning his ears.  He is otherwise a very clean person.  Due to some childhood trauma, he has a weird fear or sensation when it comes to making sure his ears are appropriately washed.  Now, I know ears can be a bit tricky – you don’t want water to get into the canal beyond the outer earlobe area.  I once got a nasty infection because I got water in one ear at a hotel pool and was not in a position to get any alcohol into the area.  I worked one summer as a day camp counselor and the worker who supervised the kids after they finished their daily swim made sure every one of them got a drop of alcohol in each ear to prevent infection.[1]  Anyway, this man with the phobia, according to the account, has had recurring ear problems due to his lack of cleaning them.  When asked, he will admit that his problems stem from this deficiency in his ear cleaning habits, yet he persists in not taking sufficient care to keep his ears clean.  If you ask him if one should clean his ears and if one should have good hygiene, he would totally agree.  Therefore, what he believes does not translate into how he behaves, at least in this aspect of his life.  I wish him well.

This little anecdote – which was told to me with a straight face with no hint of derision toward our subject – I believe reveals a very important insight into human decision-making and consequent behavior.  And the insight has some relevancy to the challenges which confront those who are engaged in organizational change.  Over the next few postings, I want to address these types of challenges and, by doing so, share with you influential language in the field of organizational change.  Three terms in this lexicon are theories-in-action, theories-in-use, and espoused theories.[2]

When I reviewed, a few postings ago, how varying mental images, emotional forces, and physiological drives or needs might compete to gain dominance in how one responds to a given perceived occurrence in that person’s life space, I described it as a rumble or tumble.  Let me put more meat in that image.  In order to make sense of the confronted situation, we form a holistic imagery of it.  That is, we formulate a “theory” about it.  You can review those earlier postings to gather what is going on, but the theory makes sense of the tumult.  Since there are varying images and “messages” involved, there is a good chance that in order to make sense, our mind will likely diminish some images or forces in order to strengthen the overall theory.  That works psychologically and allows us to respond, but if the situation presents contradicting evidence that we cannot totally block out, then we are facing an inconsistency; something does not look or feel “kosher” enough to our theory and this might very well call for a change in our theory or how we are behaving.  An opposing imagery makes itself felt and one is facing a sort of dilemma.  Dilemmas are contradictory images presenting choices in which whatever is chosen, a negative consequence is anticipated.  Argyris and Schon speak of inconsistent governing variables – individual beliefs of our theory or other theory, that “govern” how our theory functions given the situation in question.

Let me illustrate.  Suppose a change plan calls on students to begin viewing social reality from a more communal perspective than they have been asked to do in the past.  The teaching staff during their planning and teaching activities all agree this is a useful strategic decision.  As part of this change, the students are to engage in certain exercises in which they are to work in groups.  After the strategy is put in place, the teaching staff notices that certain students choose not to contribute to group work assignments and opt to “coast” and get credit that is earned by the more productive group members.  The staff is hit by a dilemma.  Should, for example, the teachers devise a grading protocol in which fellow student team members determine how credit should be distributed; does such a move illegitimately place the responsibility of evaluation on students – ill-trained to perform such a function – or should the these less productive students be allowed to get credit they did not earn?  Of course, I am presenting this dilemma as an either/or situation to illustrate the point – there are other options – but I can testify that this is an inherent problem with group projects.  But the fact that there are other options leads to very useful methods of facilitating change.

I mentioned governing variables.  In the theory shared by the teachers, there is this governing variable that holds that experiencing the give and take of group work will encourage students to appreciate the power of groups in accomplishing or devising solutions to complex problems.  Complexity here is defined in relation to the sophistication of the students.  But another related governing variable is that individuals should feel a sense of ownership within group efforts if an individual can be expected to contribute.  These two governing variables are not necessarily exclusive of one another, but they can, as in our example, function at cross purposes.  But as the overall situation does not present an either/or dilemma, neither does each of these governing variables.  Each presents the change agents and implementers with a range of options.  How much does a work assignment have to promote a communal sense?  How much ownership does an individual have to have in order to productively participate?  These are questions that those who are trying to implement the change can ask, answer, and accommodate so that the change has a higher probability of success.  If the strategy can get the students along a desired path – viewing social reality from a more communal perspective – perhaps an individual change element does not have to accomplish the end objective.  Partial success might be the ticket for a strategy such as group projects.

Now it can be the case that an inconsistency is so great that the gap cannot be bridged.  That is, both sides of the dilemma demand choices that go beyond acceptable ranges.  For example, in our case absolute ownership is demanded of every activity.  This makes those activities devoid of any communal quality.  In that case, what the staff is confronting is an incompatibility within the internal dimensions of the theory.  If that is the case, we truly have a dilemma:  continue with the project as it is currently defined or end it.  A truly incompatible dilemma is unfixable given the overall context of the change environment.  Something fundamentally has to change and such change is probably beyond the purview of those planning and/or implementing the change.

The other point to make here is that the theories under consideration fall into two categories:  espoused theories and theories-in-use.  The example above more readily represents the latter, theories-in-use.  And the inconsistency is one which resides internally to the theory.  In my next posting, I will describe what happens when espoused theory (what should be) is inconsistent with a theory-in-use or vice-versa.  As with internal theories, consistency is a good thing.  One way to up the chances for consistency is to develop sufficiently sophisticated theories that adequately account for the elements of the reality one is confronting.  Given a particular reality, this can be very difficult, yet what we are about is often demanding not only of our abilities but of our needs.

---

[1] I am not an expert on ear hygiene; I’m just reporting what I saw these many years ago.

[2] 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.

A CHANGING WE WILL GO

Organizational change is its own area of study.  I have in this blog shared with you some of my understandings concerning this area.  I have looked at change strategy types – indicating a preference for normative-re-educative type – the mental processes a person dealing with change experiences and, in the last posting, reviewed some concerns a change agent should consider when dealing with the environment in which change takes place – particularly with the planning of change.  By planning, I am specifically referring to the social interactions which generate the actual strategic approach the change parties will employ and the logistical steps they will perform.  This posting will briefly review the phases that entire process can include.  As with the mental operations of the individual, I will present these phases in a logical order, but one should not think I am saying that this is the order the actual process will take.

The phases are:  problem identification, staffing, “unfreezing,” rule making, information gathering, negotiation, testing, evaluating, conflict ameliorating, and finalizing.  As those who engage in the activity can tell you, this process involves a lot of going back and forth as conditions change, goals and aims are altered, experiences reveal unforeseen problems (including interpersonal antagonisms), and even the introduction of previously unplanned technologies.

If the normative-re-educative type strategy is being used, an overarching goal is to achieve, among the participants, an attitude in which those involved will be ready, willing, and able to implement a change.  Such a goal presupposes participants who are principled, willing to negotiate in good faith, and willing to participate in finalizing the process.  Of course, not everyone can be described as such.  Part of the challenge is to get people to choose to be these things even if it’s not their usual way of acting.  Each of these sub goals is often blocked or delayed by hidden agendas among the participants.  The job of the change agent is not to devise the change, but to facilitate the planning of the change and its implementation strategy.  What follows is my take on what facilitating means in each of the phases I listed above.

Identification of the problem can be done by the person in charge, an underling, or an external agent.  In order to generate the concerns associated with change theory, the problem has to be sufficiently serious.  For example, this blog has attempted to document serious problems associated with our efforts in civics education; that is, due to the quality of those efforts certain consequences have resulted which might not be totally the fault of our civics instruction but that it can, at least, be considered an enabling force.  In short, I have made a case that our curricular approach to civics needs to change, along with some other changes, if the problems are to be met.  I have suggested that basically what we need to include in our change plans is to shift from relying on the natural rights construct to guide the content of our civics instruction to relying on federation theory to provide that guidance.  This blog has been dedicated to that prescription.

In terms of staffing, what I am specifically suggesting is that such a change needs an in-house specialist in curriculum and a cadre of teachers who have special training in change tactics and theory.  In addition, a school would be well-advised to hire a consultant in organizational change who can function as a professional change agent.  This might be too expensive for some schools or school districts – especially if the need to change is seen as district wide.  I need to warn you that what is being proposed – a fundamental curricular change to one of the core subjects – is time consuming and would be experienced more as an evolution than a revolution.  Progress would need to be defined in long-term steps and probably imperceptible on a year to year basis.  As such, a change agent would not be at the school all the time unless he or she can “double-up” in performing other functions at the school.

“Unfreezing,” the next identified phase, occurs when selected staff members are cognitively and emotionally “shaken up” so that they are somewhat dislodged from viewing their school and its curriculum as it is now.  They have to feel, not just know, how dysfunctional their present curriculum is.  This is not to say they have to believe that every aspect of the curriculum is faulty, but that those aspects related to the identified problems are problematic and that it is mandatory that changes take place.  In addition, they have to see how their current knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, accepted norms, values, and emotions might be relevant and detrimental to any change effort.  This will probably call for a great deal of introspection on the part of the participants.  It also calls for a great deal of honesty, because what is needed is more than a verbal agreement; it is a true commitment to change.  This is a chancy proposition because only through subsequent behaviors does the person or those around him/her know if such a commitment has been made.  There are techniques that smaller change groupings can use to get to the position where such commitments can be achieved.  Perhaps a series of unfreezing sessions with various small groups can be scheduled throughout a school year as a preliminary set of training sessions to get a faculty ready to actively develop the change strategy it will then implement.

As part of the unfreezing phase, but of enough importance to give it a separate emphasis, is the need for groupings to develop rules of engagement.  The need for this rises exponentially with the presence of any conflict or variance of positions, emotions, beliefs, and/or values.  With any meaningful problem(s) this is likely and with any higher number of participants this is likely.  The longer an organization has been doing things in the way it has been doing them, the greater the need for rules.  Here, rules should obviously address processes, roles, and points of deference; they should be identified and accounted for.  Rules should also be sensitive to the concerns I addressed in the last postings which were organized as to whether the environments of change “places” resembled more an arena or a square; are they more areas of competition or “combat” or are they more areas of collaboration and accommodation?  These rules should be formulated early in the whole process and they should be respected.  They can change as different needs arise, but at any given time they should be followed as they exist at that time.  While there will be situations or sessions when it might be useful to have an “arena” sort of environment, to hash out hidden agendas or hidden animosities, a healthy process moves toward more of a square and this allows a more relaxed atmosphere and more informal interactions.  But until that takes place – perhaps several years down the line – rules take on a very important function.  They facilitate respect which is essential if honest collaboration is to take place and become a quality of how change proceeds.

Once the groupings actually begin to directly address the problem(s) and are ready to develop and implement change, the following begins to transpire:  information gathering, negotiating, testing, evaluating, and conflict ameliorating.  At this point, the participants are developing the change plan.  This takes the gathering of information, the ability to negotiate interest conflicts, the testing of tentative plans, their evaluations, and the ability to work out the inevitable conflicts that arise when it becomes abundantly clear that change really means change – people will have to do things differently and be willing to work through their own mental hang ups and clashes with others that will spring up.  Here is when the greatest challenge in the teaching profession becomes apparent.  Our history has been one in which teachers have been doing their jobs mostly in isolation.  One teacher and one classroom full of students has been the standard model.  It is the structural arrangement that a given teacher has experienced not only all of his/her career, but also experienced as a student when he/she was younger.  This is the way it has been.  Change does not necessarily call for a change in this arrangement – although some change strategies might call for some sort of team teaching – but the mere idea that some outside party will suggest, much less demand, changes in what or how a teacher teaches, can be very threatening to many, if not most, teachers.  This phase of the change process can be filled with a great deal of anxiety if the changes do not truly follow the goals of a normative-re-educative strategy; so much so that if they are not achieved, the whole project will be for naught.

Of course, the final phase is “finalization.”  Here, a new “way of doing things” is instituted and teachers and other staff members see it as the normal – not the new normal, but just the normal.  A successful finalization allows the change process to begin being a memory.  Let me remind you that the drift into the natural rights prominence took many decades to complete.  Now we just see it as normal.  This is so much the case that any change effort needs to raise the consciousness of teachers and other staff members, that such a mindset was itself the product of change.  This change happened as a result of other changes in the society and was not purposely planned necessarily by those in charge.  It came about over time as social forces in the culture, the economy, the political realm, and the like interacted with schools.  For example, the heightened divorce rates that grew dramatically in the latter part of the twentieth century had enormous influence on schools in what they taught and on how they were run.  Another influence was the number of mothers who entered the workforce.  Related to this latter development has been the explosion of opportunities women have gained in the job market – not so many talented women have to depend on teaching jobs today. 

All of these changes out there caused changes in our schools.  Instead of being the recipient of so many forces, schools should find the ways in which they can manage and direct what happens in schools.  That includes being conscious of how change takes place.

IN THIS PLACE

I want to continue with my efforts in reviewing what is involved with implementing change in an organization.  To date, I have offered some factors that affect decision-making by individuals in the midst of a political situation.  That is, what is it that moves a person to behave as he or she does when confronted with the challenge of either being asked or commanded to change behavioral patterns – protocols – in an organizational setting?  I described this decision-making as a “rumble in the mind” of various images and sensations that originate in a person’s culture, sense of morality, knowledge, beliefs, emotions, and physiological makeup.  I suggested a process but emphasized while one can impose a logical progression to the process, the actual thought patterns can be highly unordered – a rumble.  The suggested process was as follows:  a contextual inheritance (genetic inheritance and sociocultural inheritance) sets the stage within the person’s purview.  That purview is basically composed of three domains, the ideal – the real – the physiological domains.  Each of these domains adds to the total perception a person formulates and that engages that person’s emotions.  Emotions can vary greatly and need not be logically related to the question or demand under consideration.  This inspires which mode of behavior the person adopts which are one of only two possibilities – demand or support – but is expressed as one of four options – individual action seeking immediate self-interest, individual action seeking long term interests, collective action seeking immediate self-interest, or collective action seeking long term interests.  Last, the person selects the tenor by which to communicate – parent tenor, adult tenor, or child tenor.  You are invited to review the last four postings where each of these factors is described and explained.  What one needs to consider next is the immediate environment in which a specific episode of change transpires.

When those appropriately responsible for deciding that a change of any importance needs to be implemented, that person or group must begin a process that is time consuming and occurs over a number of episodes or events.  To be clear, I am not referring to a simple deviation of some process, but a change that calls for a different protocol and/or perception of how things are done in the organization.  For example, and the reason this blog has moved in this direction is a call for the adoption of a new curricular approach – from a civics curriculum guided by a natural rights construct to one guided by federation theory construct – demands that a school staff redefine to some meaningful degree what the members of that staff teach and even how the school is administered.  This is a tall order and one that cannot be done successfully in the short term.  Such a change is more than likely to meet with resistance.

This resistance takes place in a variety of ways and in a variety of places.  It can take place during planning events or in implementing events.  I have experienced efforts at change in which all involved voiced unquestioned support for the change effort, but when it came time to implement, individuals simply reverted to previous behavior patterns.  My focus is not so much the point of implementation, but events in which change strategy is developed.  A few postings ago, I expressed a preference for normative-re-educative strategies.  My following comments are in line with this preference.

I am not a change expert, so what follows is based on my readings concerning change theory and my own experiences; a word on the latter.  I was assigned to a school that instituted a school-based management effort that was imposed by the school district.  That took place during the 1990s.  Yours truly got seriously involved.  What was missing was any training or an implementation period of time.  We had time to develop a “model.” Then we implemented the model.  Needless to say, the effort, while it lasted a few years and was not a total waste of time, was not successful.  I learned one thing for sure:  organizational change and its challenges should not be underestimated.

What I want to share is a listing of concerns that a change agent should consider when working with a call for change.  By a change agent, I am not referring to a professional change agent, but an in-house staff member who is designated as a team leader or some sort of an assistant to ease the process.  I visualize this person holding a graduate degree.[1]  What follows is an array of specific areas of concerns such an agent should be consciously looking at and asking what the status of the change process is and how the participating staff members are expressing their perceived needs and wants.

I will organize these concerns as either associating with one of two general environments that can characterize a political situation.  But before identifying these two, let me share a quote by the sociologist, Philip Selznick, that I believe is very relevant to these concerns.

At times, repressive authority is in truth the only means of establishing order or accomplishing a morally worthy task; in the circumstances the alternative may well be utopian and self-defeating.  But it is more often tempting to claim there is no other way and to rely on repression as a first rather than as a last resort.  For its part, participatory authority requires very congenial conditions and may readily degenerate into weakness, negligence, and undue permissiveness.  Yet it holds the greater promise, not only for moral development but for high levels of personal achievement.[2]

What Selznick highlights is that politics is not always nice and congenial, but it can be, it can be legitimately, coercive.  If a change is calling, for example, a change that relates to safety, then there is little room to be collaborative or compromising.  But more likely, what would be considered is less demanding and time sensitive.  And if the change is quality sensitive – the change is dependent on staff being committed toward achieving success – then what will probably be essential is genuine changes in attitudes, beliefs, and dispositions.

These concerns I am about to list are presented as either/or options.  They, in reality, are not either/or conditions.  There are degrees between them and what a more talented change agent can do is determine not only the presence of a condition, but also determine to what degree that condition exists.  This takes sophisticated training that is bolstered by the appropriate experiences.  With those qualifiers in mind, let me begin.

The first and most overarching condition, and therefore concern, is whether the situation exemplifies an arena or a square.  An arena is a place where some form of competition or combat takes place.  An environment more resembling an arena is a place in which those participating in the change are in some form of expressing competing interests.  I should add that those are interests that are self-defined and subject to being misinformed or misdirected.  On the other hand, they can be well-informed and legitimate.  As opposed to an arena, a square is a place in which the participants congregate to share and coordinate efforts toward some object or aim.  Here, the participants mostly see their individual interests being advanced by belonging and taking part in a united effort for which the collective was formed.  In our case, instituting curricular change, they generally see the effort toward change as a good thing.  The stronger such a sentiment prevails, the more of a square quality the environment enjoys.  The rest of the concerns are listed as either supporting an arena environment or supporting a square environment.  Again, I am not a priori judging those concerns associated with an arena environment as negative and those associated with a square as positive.  It depends, but as Selznick points, the general direction of a change effort is to encourage and work toward establishing a square.

An arena is supported by:                  

·        Ego challenging interactions

·        Coveting attitudes and behaviors

·        Competitive approach

·        Vertical power relations

·        Formal roles

·        Structured processes

·        Strange physical and social surroundings

·        Definite expectations 

A square is supported by:

·        Ego accommodating interactions

·        Soliciting attitudes and behaviors

·        Collaborative approach

·        Horizontal power relations

·        Informal roles

·        Spontaneous processes

·        Familiar physical and social surroundings

·        “See what happens” expectations

I will address in upcoming postings several of these dichotomous pairings.  To repeat, what I am asking is that those who are sensitive to the challenges of change hold these concerns as important and ask the logical and appropriate questions of the environments in which change episodes take place.  Such sensitivity will enable a normative-re-educative strategy to be utilized.

In addition to addressing some of the above pairings, my next posting will look at a generic process in which an overall change strategy can take place.  This will not be a definitive process, but one that will highlight some of the major issues a change process need to overcome.

---

[1] A person can either get his/her teaching credentials through completing a course of study at the undergraduate or graduate level.  I argue that those who choose the graduate level should receive education in change and curricular theory.  In any given urban faculty, a sizable portion of those faculty members have received their teacher training through a graduate program.  Therefore, most staffs can have a number of teachers who can function as these in-house change agents.

[2] Selznick, P.  (1992).  The moral commonwealth:  Social theory and the promise of community.  Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press.  Quotation on p. 268.

"A RUMBLE IN THE JUNGLE" OF THE MIND

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.

---

[1] Harris, T. A.  (1969).  I’m OK, You’re OK.  New York, NY:  Harper and Row.