In a previous posting (“He Said, She Said,” June 24, 2016),
this blog reported on research that zeroed in on a factor that proves to be
detrimental to marital survival. Using research
by John Gottman,[1]
it turns out that a predictor of marriage dissolution is contempt – usually expressed
in the communication patterns between the spouses. This contempt tends to be peppered with foul
language.
Recorded interchanges between married
people were coded as to their content and through the history of the research,
it did not take much sampling of these conversations to predict which couples
were going to end up in divorce. Contempt
proved far more predictive than other forms of negative messaging.
Such insight
is useful in developing organizational theory and that extends to change theory. As a matter of fact, any understanding
concerning how people can know each other further helps in developing personnel
policy. If one is about working toward
changing an organization, especially what has been called transformative
change, these issues are important. Consequently,
a change agent is well served if he/she can have a process by which the agent
can “know” the subjects of the organization and this extends to school sites.
So, in this
light, it would be useful for a change agent to have a set of questions he/she
could ask or be concerned about to grasp what kind of person each of the staff is
like. Here, it turns out, one can better
get a sense of who another person is if he/she could have about fifteen minutes
to investigate what the subject’s bedroom looks like. Such an investigation gives one more accurate
insight along most dimensions of a person’s personality than would a lifelong
friendship.
That’s the
conclusion Samuel Gosling[2] discovered
using a five-dimension set of questions.
It’s called the “Big Five Inventory.”
It is summarized as follows:
1. Extroversion. Are you sociable or retiring? Fun-loving or reserved?
2. Agreeableness. Are you trusting or suspicious? Helpful or uncooperative?
3. Conscientiousness. Are you organized or disorganized? Self-disciplined or weak willed?
4. Emotional stability. Are you worried or calm? Insecure or secure?
5. Openness to new experiences. Are you imaginative or down-to-earth? Independent or conforming?[3]
For the most
part, a person who can have access to another person’s bedroom – allowing an
inspection of said room – can better detect how that other person’s personality
is – e.g., how items are arranged or if there are dirty clothes all about – than
someone who has had extensive friendship with that other person. Personality is being defined here as the
product of the above, questioned concerns.
Of interest to this blog is the
questions. A change agent is not going
to have access to a subject’s bedroom, nor is he/she likely to have had a long-established
relationship with a subject. But he/she
can, with a short list of questions, go about having interactions that are
aimed at answering those above listed questions.
And, as the Gosling research utilized, indirect questions can be
used. For example, in conducting a conversation
over the subject’s last vacation, well-directed inquiries can get at many of
these concerns – did the subject go for that zip line option or be content with
lounging by the pool? Answers to that
type of question can give insight as to the dimensions: extroversion and openness. Similarly, other conversations can get at the
other dimensions.
This need not be devious, early
on a change agent can let it be known that in doing his/her work, knowing the
subjects – their personalities – is essential in doing an effective job. The more the agent understands the subjects,
the more the agent can plan the change effort along the parameters the school’s
social landscape provides.
[1] As reported in Malcolm Gladwell, Blink: The Power of Thinking
without Thinking (New York, NY: Bay
Back Books, 2005).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 35.
No comments:
Post a Comment