How It Happens and How To Make It Happen: by Scott London
How It Happens and How To Make It Happen: by Scott London
By Scott London
Cultural Renewal
The science of complex systems offers some intriguing parallels between the
natural and the social world. Just as the notion of direct causation has been
found to be faulty in dynamical systems, it is now widely recognized that so-
called "prime movers" such as strong leadership or economic dislocation,
once largely unquestioned in sociology, are impossible to isolate from the
other causal factors that prompt social change. Social philosopher Alvin
Toffler has expressed the emergent view this way: "I think more in terms of
process, interrelationships, rhythms, non-equilibrium, and fields than
individual causal vectors; more in terms of mutually interactive systems,
than of one-way causality."
Social diversity.
The trouble with much of the academic research on change is that, on its
own, it's not very useful. In the words of one observer, "sociologists put
primary emphasis on attempting to build a body of verified theory about
social behavior, including social change, rather than themselves trying to
induce change. The practitioner, on the other hand, although likewise
interested in understanding, is principally concerned with inducing change,
Benne rather than merely accounting for it." This shortcoming has not been
entirely lost on social scientists. In fact, a subfield of sociology has emerged
in the past few decades devoted to "planned change." This development is a
reaction in part to the shift from the study of change to the methods of
controlling and directing it.
The rational-empirical approach assumes that men and women are rational
and practical and will change on their own given the appropriate conditions.
These strategies include:
Ensure that the "right" people are in the right "place" to bring about
needed changes.
Release and foster growth in the persons who make up the system.
What this literature shows is that there are at bottom two modes of viewing
change: the reactive and the proactive. From one perspective, individuals
and groups are the objects of change. They are at the receiving end, in the
sense that change happens to them. From the other perspective, individuals
and groups are the initiators of change and change follows from human
volition. Both perspectives have their validity, of course, and they are closely
interrelated. For instance, when one social group actively tries to bring about
change, there are invariably other groups who feel put upon and try to resist
the change.
Management Theory
One field of inquiry that has taken a particularly proactive approach to the
subject of change is management theory. This is not surprising, perhaps,
given the competitive pressures confronting many organizations today. In a
world buffeted by change, many organizations have learned that the only
way to survive is by innovating, that the only stability possible is stability in
motion. In the opening lines of Managing the Future: Ten Driving Forces of
Change for the 90s, Robert Tucker writes:
According to Senge, the fifth discipline systems thinking ties all the
other disciplines together. This kind of thinking involves "a shift of mind from
seeing parts to seeing wholes, from seeing people as helpless reactors to
seeing them as active participants in shaping their reality." If one were to
explain systems thinking in terms of an equation, he says, it would not be "A
causes B," but rather "A causes B while B causes A, and both continually
interrelate with C and D."
Senge notes that the really significant and enduring innovations he has
observed have grown out of people from multiple constituencies working
together. In education, for instance, "it's been a few committed teachers with
some bright ideas, in concert with a principal who has a particular view of his
or her job, in concert with a superintendent who is in line with that principal,
and in concert with people in the community who are very much part of the
innovation process."
Many of Senge's ideas are echoed by Rosabeth Moss Kanter and her
colleagues in The Challenge of Organizational Change. They focus on how
organizations learn to change, emphasizing "the sad fact ... that, almost
universally organizations change as little as they must, rather than as much
as they should." They characterize learning organizations as "self-designing,"
"self-renewing," and "post- entrepreneurial." They are flexible and open, and
all levels of development individual, team, work group, and organizational
occur simultaneously and synergistically.
From this perspective, social change has a great deal to do with individual
motivation. Effective strategies for change must build on the caring and
personal commitment of all the players involved. Social philosopher Philip
Slater makes this point in his book A Dream Deferred. "People are reluctant
to change because change is uncomfortable and demands a great deal of
energy," he says. "Therefore when people ask where to start working [for
change], the answer is that since change makes heavy demands on
motivation and energy, you should start where you care the most and do
what you like to do the most that will be where you contribute the most
energy and be most effective."
Robert Theobald has spent the better part of three decades organizing
communities for change. In his book The Rapids of Change, he notes that
people often ask him whether a particular change is possible. "I respond by
saying that this is the wrong question," he writes. "Instead, each of us needs
to ask where our commitment is and where we shall act. Once we are
committed, we will find ways to be effective."
Develop shared visions and goals. Setting new directions for the future is
one of the most powerful ways of effecting change. When people come
together "in such a way that their individual visions can start to interact," as
Peter Senge puts it, a creative tension is established that gives focus,
direction, and context to changes as they occur. Some techniques for
developing common visions include futures commissions, search
conferences, and visioning meetings in which participants develop "best
case" scenarios and articulate common goals. As Senge says, "we
communicate our individual visions to one another and eventually start to
create a field of shared meaning where there really is a deep level of trust
and understanding and we gradually begin to build a shared vision." This
process is very different from such perfunctory strategies as writing "vision"
statements. It often involves a great deal of reflection, listening, and mutual
understanding.
Foster social capital. Robert Putnam and others have used the term "social
capital" to denote the networks and norms of trust and reciprocity that
characterize healthy social orders. The term suggests that capital can be
measured in social as well as economic terms, that relationships have an
inherent value. Scott Fosler, author of The Public/Private Partnership, has
studied the nature of community collaboration in cities across the United
States. "If you look back at what it was that was really key in the
development of civic and political institutions," he says, "it was trust that was
based on personal relationships." Building networks and relationships within
and between individuals and groups is not something that can be done
overnight, but it is no doubt one of the most effective change strategies
available to communities and civic organizations.