d.l.dwiggins@computer.org wrote:
> As I read it, Doc is acknowledging that, while a change agent can cause
> change in an organization, he/she can't control it. The change will take
> its course based on a number of individual and organizational factors.
> Thus, a change agent needs to be able to "ride" the changes, rather than
> trying to control or limit them (think of poor old King Canute), to be in
> a position to help them head in an emergent direction.
>
> Doc, did I get close?
yes...and you did it much better than I did. Thank you.
I tend to prefer a process that fosters adaptability, foresight,
listening, balance, prudence and intuition as a superior means to
effecting change. It improves the capacity for change and develops the
capability for participatory and collaborative decisionmaking to support
adaptation to the changing environment. People change themselves,
progressively and collaboratively, in this process. I also think that I
would prefer to terminate employment (fire someone) who was unable or
unwilling to change, than I would be to try to change them. First, I
don't believe I can change them (unwillingly) and secondly, because I
don't want to.
I was also thinking that to be an effective changer, you need to know what
you are changing and why. This means that you have to see beyond the
present, comprehend what you're seeing, and generate the strategic
framework to focus change along the right pathways. Among the obstacles
to this are the attitudes and biases we form from our mental models.
These create the potential for arrogance or hubris in the changer--often
disguised with humility or devotion to some higher "good."
If we can limit our conversation (in this thread) to change in an
organization, I know that we can generate behavioral changes (reactions or
responses) among the members of an organization. We can even project,
with some success, the effectiveness of a change action, given some good
information about the organization and its' people. We can implement
strategies that generate behavioral changes. But, what we can't do is
change another person. Only the other person can do that for themselves,
in response to their environment.
The "gun to the head" analogies aren't very useful to me. The changes
that this scenario brings haven't even been considered...they are mostly
physiological (fear, shock, depression, anger) which may result in
entirely different outcomes than the one hoped for by the person with the
gun. Those of you on this list who have had this experience may
understand what I mean.
Organizations and communities need to change in order to live. Sometimes
the change is incremental or gradual...sometimes it is not. The change
agent who can help the group ride the change (as I alluded to in the
analogy which is being discussed here) in such a way as to create a higher
level outcome is a better ally than the change agent who brings his or her
own change mental model into the organization as a salesman does with a
product. The examples of this abound. The learning organization concept,
in my view, supports the former...not the latter.
regards,
Doc
ps. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind with this note. (-:
--"Richard C. Holloway" <learnshops@thresholds.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>