I am in the midst of describing a “simple” model of political
decision-making on the part of individuals.
I write political because I am trying to address what happens when a change
effort is being conducted in an organization of some type, but more specifically
a school. In those situations, what
usually happens is that someone comes up with an idea and, in order to
implement it, other people need to either be convinced or coerced into
performing some changed protocol or process other than what they had been
doing. Generally, people do not like
change. Change can represent different
sorts of threats. It might mean having
to display different skills a person might or might not have or to perform a skill
to a higher degree of difficulty. This might
expose people to deficiencies that to date were inconsequential or that could
be hidden. Or a new challenge might arise
if the change calls for new working arrangements with others, perhaps with
people a person hardly knows or worse, might dislike. Of course, change might entail a demotion or
having to do things the person just doesn’t like to do. All of these and other things can be the
source of a negative reaction to change and when these kinds of changes occur
at the workplace, the looming importance of a paycheck is never far from a
person’s consciousness. Fear can be a
motivator, but it is much more often a negative force which at the least
disrupts a person’s quality of life and at the most can be the motivator to
engage in very destructive behavior.
Given the potential stakes, I would comfortably regard such events or
confrontations as political. These are
power exerting or power receiving episodes and as such are political.
When one acts politically, there are just two modes of
behavior, but with variations in how the modes are exercised. The two modes are derived from David Easton’s
political systems model.[1] They are
demands and supports. At a school or any
organization, a person can react politically by either demanding something; for
example, let’s not do this, or supporting someone or something; for example, I’m
behind you one hundred percent. Of
course, to varying degrees, a person can choose both modes: I like it but, in regard to that aspect, can
we do this instead? Why a person chooses
to demand and/or support a change proposal or some aspect of a change proposal
can be found in either the contextual inheritance, mental domains, and/or emotional
state a person is in. How these factors
influence a decision were the topics of my last two postings. While this seems easy enough – either/or he
or she demands or supports a proposal – that choice becomes apparent in a
combination of the following options:
behave individually to advance immediate self-interest, behave
collectively to advance immediate self-interest, behave individually to advance
long term self-interest, and/or behave collectively to advance long term
self-interest. Usually, a person will
choose one of these options and stick with it.
Sometimes not. He or she might
try one option, see how it works, and decide to try another one. Of course, changing course can continue, but
as changes of this type happen, the situation for the person will become more
and more complicated. The tendency is to
stick to one option. Here, the
importance of the real domain and emotional disposition is very important. When confronted with real world dilemmas or
exertions of power, especially when a coercive element is added, the ideals one
brings to the episode can be sorely tested and sacrificed. Of course, this leads to rationalizations and
other coping mechanisms by which an individual deals with resulting, internal
inconsistencies.[2]
As can be detected, my view accepts the behavioral notion
that one always acts out of a concern for self-interest. The question is whether one can see beyond
the immediate anticipated rewards or punishments and see how one will be
affected by a decision over the long haul.
This distinction was put into sharp focus by Alexi de Tocqueville’s
famous phrase: “self-interest rightly
understood.” I have written about this
notion often in this blog, but let me add:
in terms of organizational change and the politics involved, the person
needs to analyze situations carefully to try to determine, one, what
self-interests are affected by a proposed change, and two, which of those
interests reflects short term effects and which ones are long lasting. I say “needs” in the sense that a person
wants to derive the most benefits in terms of quantity and quality. These can be difficult to ascertain because
change often entails unknowable consequences in terms of the change itself and
the social and physical factors the change can effect. But one can ask oneself: am I acting or going to act in a certain way
because of how I feel right now or because, in the long run, how I will feel
overall? Ultimately, it will be sentiments
that determine how prudent a course of action is or will be. That is, given the situation, will one’s
actions lead to the highest level of happiness possible?
With a course of action decided, what remains that can still
be influential in how that action is received by others – and, therefore,
determining what levels of success affected parties achieve – is the tenor in
which the chosen action is communicated.
That will be what the next posting addresses.
[1] Two sources for this model are: Easton, D. (1953).
The political system. New York, NY:
Alfred A. Knopf and Easton, D.
(1965). A system analysis of political life. New York, NY:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
[2] I will treat this eventuality more extensively in a
future posting. This whole problem
relates to a condition referred to as internal inconsistency when there is an inconsistent
gap between a person’s espoused theory and theory-in-use. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment