The last few postings have been about change, as in the case
of organizational change. The aim is to
share some ideas associated with making profound change in a school’s curricular
efforts. Specifically, the aim is to
have schools abandon, as a guiding construct, the natural rights perspective
and adopt federation theory. The last
set of postings looked at types of change strategies: rational-empirical, power-coercive, and
normative-re-educative strategies. Let
me share with you how Robert Chin and Kenneth D. Benne summarize the difference
between empirical-rational strategies, the most commonly used type, and the
normative-re-educative type that is most closely conducive to federation
theory:
[W]hat we have called
rational-empirical approaches depend on knowledge as a major ingredient of
power. In this view, men [and women] of
knowledge are legitimate sources of power and the desirable flow of influence
or power is from men [and women] who know to men [or women] who don’t know
through processes of education and dissemination of valid information.
Normative-re-educative strategies of
changing do not deny the importance of knowledge as a source of power,
especially in the form of knowledge-based technology. … In addition, exponents of
normative-re-educative approaches recognize the importance of noncognitive
determinants of behavior as resistances or supports to changing – values,
attitudes, and feelings at the personal level and norms and relationships at
the social level. Influence must extend
to these noncognitive determinants of behavior if voluntary commitments and
reliance upon social intelligence are to be maintained and extended in our
changing society. Influence of
noncognitive determinants of behavior must be exercised in mutual processes of
persuasion within collaborative relationships.
These strategies are oriented against coercive and nonreciprocal
influence, both on moral and on pragmatic grounds.[1]
Excuse the length of this citation, but I feel the authors
capture quite well what the differences of the two approaches are and I find
this distinction revealing in that I associate rational-empirical strategies as
being in congruence with natural rights thinking and normative-re-educative
strategies in congruence with federalist theory thinking. And with these three approaches – also
including power-coercive – described and somewhat explained above and in the
preceding postings, I want to next shift our attention to the individual being
called upon to change. What are the
challenges from the perspective of that person (the planned-for); what are the
dynamics occurring within that individual as he/she is asked or expected to
change?
In keeping with the general tenor of this blog, I will
address this other perspective as a case of a political change, one in which
the person is being subjected to a political confrontation; that is, a
situation in which the person is either asked or expected to make certain
changes within his/her organizational role(s).
In essence, what is generally being asked when one is considering
organizational change – in our case, change within a school – is aiming a chosen
strategy that will have individuals change their course of action from what it
is now to a different course of action in the future. At times, these can and are likely to be
changing an established course of
action – the way things have been done in a particular school over a
significant amount of time. One wants to
implement a change with the least amount of cost and, if done under the
auspices of a federalist mode, one in which the planned-for will submit to the
change out of his or her own accord; then what is sought is not only a change
of mind, but also a change of heart. Let
me add, the particulars of what is changed is not a priori determined, but is developed in collaboration between the
planned-for and the change agent. That
is, the approach, under such a goal, will be of the normative-re-educative category. In short, in order to accomplish this, the
process used will have to “get into his/her/their head(s)” and that includes
not only what a person believes to be true, but also what a person believes
should be true. Whatever is chosen as
the specific strategy, therefore, will have to account for an array of
factors. In this posting, I want to give
a broad overview of what these factors are.
This will be limited to a run-down of the list of factors I believe are
influential in such a change.
I will present these factors in a logical order. One should not read into this order any claim
that the decisions people make in adopting any change of mind and heart follows
this order. It is merely presented this
way to assist in your understanding of what I am trying to communicate and,
more important, in my attempt to get a handle on what goes on with a person who
is so subjected.
The first set of factors is what I call contextual inheritance. This
is made up of two elements:
social-cultural inheritance and genetic inheritance. Simply, social-cultural inheritance has to do
with the cultural tradition in which the individual has been socialized with
its array of norms, customs, cultural narratives (including ethnic, racial,
religious, and national traditions), values, and other cultural legacies that
relate to the challenges of change the individual is confronting. On the other hand, genetic inheritance
includes all those biologically determined forces impinging or otherwise
influencing the individual’s decision-making processes. For example and very important, genetically
determined level of energy a person brings to life and its challenges will
animate or depress the entire motivational outlook a person brings to a
particular demand for change. We vary,
among ourselves, in how energetic we are about work, relationships, likes and
dislikes. This whole genetic inheritance
is popularly referred to as how a person is “wired.” Both the social-cultural and the genetic
elements set parameters on how one is disposed to act.
The second set of factors is something I have already described
and explained in this blog: the mental domains that influence the individual in
his/her decision-making. The domains are
the ideal (how reality should be), the real (how reality is), and physiological
(drives and other bodily influences – which are obviously, highly dependent on
how we are “wired”). Of course, what is
actually real will deviate from how the mind “knows” the real, even in cases
when the perception is stronger than a belief and is held as knowledge. Our ability to “know” the truth is less than
perfect; that means, we, ultimately, construct what we consider to be true. The other condition affecting our mental
images of the ideal, real, and physiological is that many, if not most, of
these images are either subconscious or non-conscious.
The third set of factors is the emotional dispositional
filter. This mental orientation is not a
product of reality, but of feelings.
Such emotions as anger, love, loyalty, trust, humor, comradery, and the
like will be significantly influential in the decisions we make, including
those that are political in nature. In a
political situation, it is not necessary to identify the exact emotions that
are triggered in a given confrontation, but what is important is that whatever
emotions are brought to the fore will lead to one of several dispositions. These include a solo disposition, an allying
disposition, and/or an antagonistic disposition. So, for example, if the emotion felt is anger
over some political confrontation, this emotion might lead to an antagonistic
disposition. The overall disposition a
person feels in reacting to a confrontation, itself, can be based on one, two,
or all three of these more specific dispositional reactions. So, one might be disposed toward antagonism,
but to be expressed by the individual without any assistance from others; i.e.,
a solo disposition. In another
situation, it can be antagonism in coordination with others. In a third situation, it can be just plain
antagonism without any thought or motivation to seek being alone or being in
alliance with others. Under such a
situation, if an opportunity arises to act antagonistically, the person might
take it, whether it is done with others or not or whether it is acted upon
openly or not. In general, therefore, the
particular disposition for a particular situation can be one, two, or all three
of these more specific disposition types.
The fourth set of factors is the intended mode of action chosen
by the individual. This is the simplest
of the factors; there are only two possibilities. A person, when confronted with a situation,
can either demand something politically or support someone or something
politically. Those are the only two
modes of political behavior. But whether
the mode is demand or support, each has four optional types: individual acts in pursuing immediate
self-interest, individual acts in pursuing long term self-interest, collective
acts pursuing immediate self-interest, or collective acts pursuing long term
self-interest. While there are shades
among these options – an option can be intermediate self-interest – the general
thinking, planning, and intent is to either be immediate – what is good for me
now – or have long term self-interest – what is good for me, let’s say, a year
from now.
And the fifth and last set of factors affecting the decision
of an individual – which will affect the consequences of whatever action is
taken – is the interactive tenor one adopts.
Here, the choices come directly from transactional analysis and they are
a “parent” interactive tenor, an “adult” interactive tenor, or a “child”
interactive tenor.[2] The “parent” tenor is demanding and
authoritative. The “adult” is reasonable
and calculating. The “child” is feel-good
seeking and immediate. Each of these is
more complex, but these short descriptions, I believe, give you a good sense of
what each tenor generates in the form of behavior.
I will stop here for now.
I still want to describe further, in upcoming postings, what this model
indicates: the attributes of the dynamics when these factors are in “action” as
in when an actual decision-making process is transpiring. Also, one would benefit from understanding
the anticipating consequences of each of these factors “doing their thing” in
actual confrontations. When all that is
reviewed, I will then revisit a topic I have written about before: the distinction between theory-in-use and
espoused theory and how levels of “internal consistency” and congruence affect
how likely the individual (the planned-for) will productively engage in
change.
[1]
Chin, R. and Benne, K. D. (1985).
General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin (Eds.),
The Planning of Change (pp.
22-45). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. Quotation on p. 39.
[2]
Here the classic source is Harris, T. A. (1973).
I’m ok, you’re ok. New York, NY:
Avon Books. In this text I am
changing the terminology from that of Dr. Harris.
