I have not posted a blog in several months. Too busy with travel, too distracted by the chaotic world in which we live. I have been watching with wonder the historic events of the past several months, I confess to having been engrossed in them, searching for meaning, and hoping for the best.
The amount and degree of change world-wide has been and continues to dominate the news, with the hope for a better future. I am specifically keen on commenting on the strategies of change in play and the theory behind them. I recall being exposed to these theories in the early 1970's. An interesting article by the well-known publisher University Associates was a great help in explaining the different kinds of strategies and their strengths and weaknesses. Let me see if I can elaborate.
The theory teaches us that there are basically three major types. Each has been named for a group that typically, but not exclusively, might use it. Each strategy follows a set of assumptions behind the decision to use it, the needs the strategy meets for its users, and of course, its strengths and weaknesses.
Let's start with the first group. This group includes strategies that are best classified as based in power and force. The strategies that fall into this group are: the Political, the Economic, the Military, and the Confrontation change strategies.
POLITICAL STRATEGY -- assumes that if you find and understand the power structure of those who are perceived to have influence over decision making, then the desired action will be achieved. The need here is for control and attention. The strength is that it is effective at getting decisions implemented. The problem is that people relying on this strategy find it difficult to maintain credibility if they experience a failure, and subject themselves to backlash from others with opposing views.
ECONOMIC STRATEGY -- assumes that change can be accomplished by acquiring or obtaining control over all forms of materials goods. An important ingredient is to include those who possess control of the resources. The strength is that as long as the resources are available the strategy is effective in getting decisions implemented. The problem, on the other hand is, that resources are not unlimited.
MILITARY STRATEGY -- assumes that change in behavior can be effected through the use of physical force. A critical component is the development of conditioning, agility, and knowledge of use of methods to enforce change. The strength is effective at keeping order. The weakness comes from the fact that coercion must be costantly maintained because relaxing of control will result in the change not being sustained. Also force tends to be met with force.
CONFRONTATION STRATEGY -- assumes that the use of nonviolent argument will force people to look at problems resulting in the desired change being made. To succeed, people must be able to deal with and use conflict. This strategy helps people release tension, vent anger, or argue for moral values. The strategy is good at getting people to look at issues they would rather avoid. The problem, on the other hand, is that it offers no solution, that those who use it typically lack the power, and also that the strategy creates a backlash.
The second group can be classified as rational-empirical. This approach to change assumes that people are guided by reason and will use rational problem-solving processes, including observation and collection of data, in determining change strategies.
ENGINEERING STRATEGY -- assumes that by changing the context e.g., physical layout, regulated or permitted interaction patterns and role descriptions that change will result in achieving the desired changes. This approach relies on technical skills and structural intervention. The strength is that top managers who have power to influence system-wide changes in structure can be effective on implementing changes. The problem is that people are not just tools and interchangeable resources. This approach can create major resistance to change and therefore decrease the probability of success.
The final group can be classified as normative-reeducative. The strategies used are based on the rationale that, by nature, people exhibit goal-seeking behavior. It also assumes that learning takes place as a result of the interaction process that occurs as people attempt to reach their goals while confronting the demands and resources of the environment.
ACADEMIC STRATEGY -- assumes that since people are rational, if you present them with facts, then people will make the necessary changes. People will listen to those who have knowledge about things of concern to them. This strategy meets the need that people have for autonomy. The strength is that it produces information that is made available to those considering change. It is good at pointing out problems. The problem is that since people are not involved in the process of developing a strategy, there is a lack of ownership of the findings from such studies. As a result, this strategy is weak at mobilizing support and it is time consuming.
FELLOWSHIP STRATEGY -- assumes that getting people to know and like one another will facilitate mutual influence and change, Participation in decision making is thus crucial. People have a need to belong, and this strategy meets that need. The strength rests on its commitment to the individual and giving dignity to the individual. It can get things started. However, conflict avoidance and inability to reach decisions contribute to a loss of direction. Lack of direction in turn can lead to less commitment.
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE STRATEGY -- assumes that problems in today's world are so complex that they require a combination of or multiple approaches to solve them. Involvement can lead to increased commitment to and acceptance of the results. Here we see a need to integrate the emotional and rational parts of man. The strength is that it puts responsibility where knowledge resides. The problem, on the other hand, due to situational orientation and its eclectic nature, makes it difficult to explain and to understand the change.
It is important to note that no one strategy is better than another, Each strategy is based on different assumptions, and each has different strengths and weaknesses. These strategies are rarely used in their pure form. Often they are used in combination in accordance with the situation on hand.
So much for theory ... Now let's go to practice. Take a look at the major changes around us today. Can you link the type of strategy, its strengths and weaknesses? I think I can, and so can you. Let's quickly see the general application:
SYRIA -- change strategy: military crackdown (force) met by rebellion and casualties on both sides.
ITALY -- change strategy: economic and political met by confrontation (strikes, occupation, disobedience). Prime minister an ex-banker. Other ministers technocrats.
EGYPT -- change strategy: confrontation met by police repression, military intervention, finally elections
LYBIA -- change strategy: military crackdown (force) met by rebellion with casualties on both sides, sanctions (economic), transition
AFGHANISTAN -- change strategy: military (force) met by guerilla warfare, terrorism, disengagement to come
USA -- change strategy: political-economic met by sit-ins, occupations, stand-offs
GREECE -- change strategy: economic and political met by mass protests, urban warfare, destruction of property, change in cabinet of government. Prime minister an ex banker. Other ministers technocrats.
I can go on and so can you. Notice that neither of the prime ministers in Italy and Greece were elected by the people. What happened to representative government? Change in both countries was imposed by outsiders, bankers, bureaucrats in Brussels, other countries (Germany and France).
Fascinating subject. A great laboratory for understanding change and change processes. Enjoy the journey.
No comments:
Post a Comment