ADDRESSING A REFUGEE PROBLEM

In the last posting, I left you with an assignment.  I suggested a situation in which you are teaching in a school that has been designated to accept a number of Syrian refugee students.  Now this has not happened, to my knowledge, but it can happen in the future.  Why a particular school district and school is chosen for such a designation is beyond the concerns of the assignment, but let us say the school is noted for being located in a tolerant and liberal community.  Yet the situation, as I presented it, does pose a challenge.  Before addressing the problem directly, let me focus on a few factors that are contained in the situation as I presented it, but need further emphasis.

One important factor in this scenario that bears special note is that the change I described is not emanating from an in-house observation of a problem.  The change is coming from the district and reflects an up-down decision.  Perhaps the district has been ordered to accept the refugee children by state authorities, but that in itself is not relevant to the conditions the school community faces.  The point is that the school has been given this challenge by legally designated authorities and whether such authority should or should not be able to issue such mandates is a subject for another posting.  Before you dismiss this factor as something I am making up, I will tell you that all of the major change efforts I experienced in a twenty-five year teaching career came from the district – some originated at the district level; some originated from the state.  So, for purposes of this assignment, let us accept that the school is going to get the refugees and now it is up to the school personnel to make the best of it.

As I described the situation, one can assume the principal is disposed to be inclusive in her decision-making.  She called the teacher-parent meeting in order to hear from the community.  The meeting, she feels, also allows members of the community to have some say – or, at least, feel they have some say.  It is at that meeting when a parent stood up and voiced the following (paraphrased):  who is doing all the bombing?  It’s not the Christians; it’s not the Jews.  It’s the Muslims.  Then the man looked at the assembled group and asked: did you get that, sport?  In what he said, one could easily see that he was speaking for a sizable minority of the audience as they, in turn, voiced, loudly, their approval not only for the content of his concern, but for the tone in which he voiced it.  There is “attitude” behind this objection.

Your assignment, if you chose to accept it, was to recommend to the principal what she should do next.  In doing so, I invited you to apply the change strategy elements I have described and explained over the last series of postings.  I didn’t expect you to sit down and write the principal an email, but perhaps you could have given this challenge some thought.  I promised that I would, in this posting, give you my take on this situation – here goes.

First, the situation to this point calls for defining and thinking of what I, as a teacher, and possibly the principal, don’t know.  For example, are these new students going to be here for a transition period or are they to become a regular part of the student body?  What are the language requirements of these refugees?  What is the employability status of these children’s parents?  What are their living accommodations?  In other words, what is the scope of the challenge before this school and community?  Then there is the extent of the opposition.  Does the voiced opposition represent negative beliefs in the community or is it contained within the group who showed up to the meeting?  How deep-seated are these misgivings and how apt are those who harbor negative feelings willing to act on them?  In other words, while these negative notions reflect an espoused theory, is it strong enough to generate an active theory-in-use?  And if it is that strong, how much congruence will there be between their espoused theory and their theory-in-use?  Are there within these people, contradicting espoused theories?  Are their assumptions firmly imbedded in their beliefs?  There is obviously a need to talk with those members of the community who are put out by the idea of accepting these students.

Now this is not an exhaustive list of things to consider, concerning this situation.  What I am presenting is a notion of how the factors of successful change can be used.  What I just described relates to the environmental factors of the situation; there is also the individual level concerns.  Let me add some questions that can be asked of the individuals involved, both in the community and in the staff.  By the way, one should not assume that everyone on staff is on board with this change.  A lot of what the principal needs to deal with will be obstacles presented by staff members.  An important difference with this latter group is that due to their employment status, these individuals might not be so open and honest about their feelings, but can be even more undermining of an attempt to implement a successful strategy.

Of course, when knowing about those with whom you work, this comes in handy.  That knowledge, on the part of an administrator, should be one he/she actively seeks on an ongoing basis.  For a school principal, this is not only a concern for those who work under his/her authority, but also for the leaders of the community.  Why?  So when a challenge as the one I am posing arises, and they do, the principal and the other administrators don’t have to start from scratch.  All schools, like any social entity, have to accommodate change.  This often calls on affected people changing their behavior and that usually means, at least to some minimal degree, changes in their beliefs, feelings, attitudes, and values.  So, a smart administrator seeks these types of information about those he/she is in charge of and those with whom he/she has to interact.  Hopefully, that is the case of our principal.  Be that as it may, here are some questions she might ask of those involved:

·        Does this person exhibit a reaction to problems which can be described as being idealistic, realistic, or visceral?

·        Does the person tend to maintain an even keel over problematic situations or does he/she tend to become emotional?  (Of course, this is a matter of degree, so the principal might want to gauge this observation.)

·        Does this person tend to be demanding of the school and its staff or does he/she offer support for what the school is doing?  (Again, this is a matter of degree.)

·        In the choices to act, does this person see his/her self-interests in a short term perspective or take more of a long term perspective?  And are those interests sought after by acting in isolation or is the person an organizer or joiner of collective action?

·        What tenor does this person adopt in expressing his/her knowledge, attitudes, values, plans?  That is, does this person offer an authoritative, a reasonable, or an overemotional tenor?

And, in terms of this particular situation:

·        For those agreeing with the protesting parent:  how truly are the expressed objections to the refugee children a concern over safety issues (bombings and killings) or how much are they a reflection of cultural biases against this particular minority?

With clear answers to these questions, our principal can go about devising a strategy.  Given the long-term nature of the situation – these students are going to be around for a long time – this principal would be wise to have good information regarding these factors.  This might prove difficult, but the more information she can acquire, the better off she will be in meeting this challenge.  She would also be assisted if she could count on a supportive faculty and other staff members who are equally prone to being subjected to the factors these questions reflect.  One last thing, in all of this: our principal would be well-served in being as honest in what she is doing as possible.  And this is my take on the assignment.

A SHORT ASSIGNMENT

We all, from time to time, say something we don’t really mean.  Perhaps someone does something or says something that ticks us off or maybe makes us exceptionally happy and we blurt out some words that are an overreaction to the occasion.  I’ve been there; not often, but I have had my moments.  There have been, of late, certain events that have made most of us angry, perhaps a bit scared, disgusted, sad, and a host of other emotions.  Of course, I am referring to the terrorist attacks both in Paris and here in San Bernardino, California.  Rightly so, the media has dedicated quite a bit of air time and print to report and comment on these attacks.  Currently, the President’s poll numbers have taken a hit.  One is taken with how sorrowful these events are.  Part of the news coverage has tried to report some of this emotional response.  People have been asked the “how does this make you feel” question.  One particular response to this type of question has stuck with me.  It was from a middle aged man; he looked as if he was either in a suburban or rural area.  He had an accent, but I was not able to place it.  It was American, but I’m not sure from which area of the country.  This is what he had to say (paraphrased):  who is doing all the bombing?  It’s not the Christians; it’s not the Jews.  It’s the Muslims.  Then the man looked into the camera and asked: did you get that, sport?

I have been, in this blog, reviewing some ideas about change.  I have an assignment for you, if you want to take part.  Apply what I have had to share concerning change to a change project.  Let us say that you are working in a school that has agreed to accept a certain number of Syrian refugees.  This has not been universally accepted in the school’s community.  The principal, in trying to ease the process and before the youngsters arrive, calls a teacher-parent meeting in the school’s auditorium.  The principal, after a few introductory remarks, opens the proceedings up to questions.  Hands are raised and the first parent called upon says what the above man said.  As he expresses his opinion, others – not all, but a significant number – audibly express approval of what the recognized parent is saying.  Assuming that these sentiments are shared by a sizable minority of the parents, analyze the situation and make recommendations to the principal as to how he/she should react to the challenge this response represents.  I will, in my next posting, give you my take.

THE IDEAL SELF, THE PRACTICAL SELF, AND OTHER GUY

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.

PROBLEMS WITH TESTING THEORIES

I try to have each of the postings of this blog stand alone, but I am making an exception with this one.  This posting will refer to the previous one, Here We Go Loopty-Loop.  In that posting, I used a made up anecdotal story about Jane’s family in which the relations between the family and Jane’s parents are somewhat strained.  Jane, the mother in our family, has taken it upon herself to bolster that relationship and has chosen to begin a change process by calling a family “kitchen table” meeting in which the family, together, can come up with a plan to achieve the aforementioned aim.  I am using this narrative to illustrate some organizational change principles in a simplified setting because I want you to gather, at the least, some appreciation of what is called for if our school districts were to adopt a new curricular approach to civics education.  This blog is dedicated to advancing a different perspective to civics, a perspective I have entitled federation theory.  By using a simpler environment, because a family involves significantly fewer participants, I hope to make the change principles more understandable.

I am advocating, much in the spirit of federation theory, a change strategy that falls under a more general strategy type called normative-re-educative strategies.  In this type, there is less than total reliance on either rational argument (although rational arguments can be utilized) or coercive measures (although in portions of a strategy, limited coercive measures might be needed).  Instead, the overall aim of normative-re-educative strategies is to change not only what change subjects know, but also what these subjects feel and possibly what they hold as their related values, norms, and emotions.  Such a change goes beyond changing processes and, possibly, structures.  Not only are we talking about a change of mind, but a change of heart.

To date, in my review of change theory, I have introduced the terminology of Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon[1] which includes the following:  theories of action, theories-in-use, espoused theories, single loop learning, double loop learning, and governing variables.  You are invited to go back and take a look at the last few postings as I introduced these terms and defined them.[2]  But for this posting, I want to continue with the general concern of the way one finds out how effective a particular theory-in-use is.  In the last posting, I introduced the procedural stage of testing a theory.  Testing is what one can do to see if a theory, or more likely a part of a theory, is confirmed or disconfirmed; whether the theory leads to desired change or not.

In reviewing testing, I will define some of these terms again, perhaps giving those definitions a slightly different emphasis.  Starting with theories of action, which includes both espoused theories and theories-in-use, I remind you that they are mental representations of what a person, desiring change, holds as what should be done or what will be done.  In terms of desiring change, these theories are formulated so that the person seeking the change can gain control.  We have comparable theories when building a bridge, treating mental illness, applying a new technique in growing crops, or in any planned change endeavor.  In each case, testing theories are prudent and are generally part of the change process. 

In my anecdote, I have Jane test her theory of action by calling that meeting.  When more formal organizations attempt change, they test theories by using more formal means.  In effect, what is being tested is the predictive power of the theory or theories.  But the entire process of testing is plagued with problems and being aware of them, the tester(s) can account for them and possibly handle any deleterious consequences which would result from any deficiencies in testing.  Right away, there are three types of problems when dealing with testing theories that are aimed at normative change.

The first problem occurs when one is dealing with the feelings of people – when feelings affect what one wants to believe about the participants of the change – this will have consequences as the social dynamics unfold.  Let me illustrate.  In our family example, the kids have formed fairly established view of the type of man their maternal grandfather is.  To them, he is a relic of some highly disciplined, unyielding past with a serious lack of human concern.  This is demonstrated by the mean comments he spouts from time to time as he criticizes just about everything they do.  They belittle the older man behind his back and generally treat him with guarded tolerance and little to no warmth.  This adds to the grandfather’s view of the family and further antagonizes them although he tries to express some affection.  What we have are self- fulfilling prophecy dynamics going in both directions.  One way is bad enough – as when a teacher believes his/her students are stupid and treats them accordingly and they respond in kind. But when the cycle operates in both directions, testing becomes very challenging.

There is also a problem with testing in general in that it calls on opposite emotional postures.  On the one hand, to be successful under many change challenges (or any challenge, for that matter), a subject is well served by being decisive, committed, and confident.  But under testing conditions, one needs to be experimental, skeptical, and critical.  This is a bit of a paradox that plagues just about any environment in which theories of action is being tested.

A third concern occurs when one is testing a value.  Remember, what one is after when proposing changes in curricular content is changes in values.  The question becomes:  how do you test a value?  For example, how do you test the value, as a value,  of grandparents being revered? 

Let me address each of these problems and I will start with this last problem of testing a value.  Of course, one cannot test a value directly.  Whether one values something or not is not a testable sort of statement.  I value love or trust or loyalty or honesty; how does one even think of testing any one of these notions?  Either you hold a value to any degree or you don’t.  Perhaps you value dishonesty.  If you do, one can only speculate as to the consequences of acting on such a value, not on the value itself – it just doesn’t make sense to do so or even try to do so.  What one can do, though, is to look at those consequences and state such a connection with an if/then proposition.  I believe, along with Argyris and Schon, that seeing the testing of value propositions from this approach provides some sort of test.  For example, I could value talking out disagreements – let’s say between grandparent and grandchild.  If so, one can ask why and propose an answer.  If we talk out our disagreements, then we can discover areas of agreement and, in turn, have a basis for building cooperation or caring or a basis for further talk that can lead to a plan for fostering reconciliation.  What happens is that assumptions upon which disagreements were based can come out or be made explicit.  Better still, if what is being highlighted by the if/then statement refers to a norm, then over time the questionable norm can begin to be addressed.  Any norm which is institutionalized will not be given up readily.  Instead, by testing, one begins a process in which the norm is challenged.  A norm, such as the accepted notion that grandfather is a seriously flawed individual, can be identified, considered, tested, and reevaluated.  It, in short, can be tested over time.  There is always the possibility that the norm or judgement proves unyielding to review and that trying to avoid its veracity is causing problems within the family.  Then other opposing norms and values might come into play (e.g., it is good to have stable relations within the immediate family to have a peaceful homestead); then another test might have to be made.  If attempts to generate warmer relations with granddad are pursued, then disruptive and divisive interactions in the family will result.  In turn, this might lead to testing the congruence between espoused theory and theory-in-use or testing the consistency within an espoused theory or within a theory-in-use might be necessary.  These kinds of testing are long-term and are not accomplished so readily after one or two incidences of testing.

In testing theories, the next problem, self-fulling prophecy problem, can and often does arise.  Again, this occurs when a tester holds some judgement about another participant and because of it can see only evidence that confirms that judgement.  The person who sees others in a certain, unquestionable way and is unable to cast a critical eye on a resulting judgement is said to have a “self-sealing” perspective.  This demands a change in the theory that person holds and this will more likely call on some outside force or event to bring an unavoidable view of the judgement as being an erroneous conclusion.  Let’s take the grand kids’ view of their grandfather.  It is based on a great deal of interaction with the older man.  Remember, their relationship with their paternal grandparents is very positive, but not so with their maternal grandparents, especially mom’s dad.  What if they were “forced” to see this man from the perspective of his professional life (I established in the story that both maternal grandparents are highly respected professionals in their respected fields)?  Perhaps the kids could come face to face with the people gramps has helped through his career and are exposed to the warmth and appreciation they feel for him?  Would this be of such a nature that the grandkids might start questioning their own negative feelings toward him?  Perhaps so.  This outside “force” might cause their theory-in-use to fail, at least in how it pertains to gramps.  The event providing this force is political in that it forces the kids to give up repressing information about their grandfather – to see another side of the older man.  Repressed information does not occur from some sinister agent; it just evolves from experiences.  To undo them, though, usually takes a concerted effort by some third party – perhaps mom in our story.  Again, we are talking about time consuming processes and in the case of some professional organization, the efforts of trained and skilled change agents or administrators are then likely needed.

The last problem addressed in this posting has to do with the opposing postures change testing involves:  between the need to be psychologically certain about what one is doing and the intellectual demand for uncertainty when it comes to testing.  This problem is heightened if the change environment is unstable – e.g., what if in our story mom and dad were having marital problems?  In such situations, the participants can be overwhelmed with information.  The participants would then cease to be guided by information, but instead make decisions based on norms – often non-reflected ones.  Norms provide a sense of certainty when certainty is seriously lacking.  At such times, though difficult, one needs to make norms hypothetical.  That is, if one can see that under current conditions one is not succeeding, one might begin to question the norms that in turn are providing support for a theory in action.  At these times, the participant has to see that the here-and-now, sustained problem(s), is more important than the theory.  He/she has to buy into the notion that things are not working out.  The challenge is to sharpen one’s view of reality and identify how that reality is counter to some or all of the elements in the theory-in-use.  If placing what is currently real as a priority is successful done, then one is free to test and have less need to have here-and-now certainty.  This is a daunting challenge indeed and one that probably demands professional change agent assistance if the organization is of any size and complexity.  Even some family situations might call for professional therapy to meet this demand.

These are but some of the problems change agents encounter, especially during the testing phases of the change process.  Participants in change have to develop functional theories – either in terms of what they want to occur or in how they go about getting it.  Effectiveness means control, and control leads to planned change.

---

[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.

[2] A good Internet site that reviews the work of Chris Argyris and provides definitions for these terms is provided by Infed.  See http://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyris-theories-of-action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning/ .

“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.