I read several chapters of Quinn's (2008) book on deep change. Most of those chapters focused on aspects of corporate change. I was especially interested in Quinn's description of the technical, transactional, and transformational paradigms. Quinn notes that many people gain individual technical skills that initially help them to succeed, but ultimately, as they are promoted to leadership positions, they learn to operate by a transactional paradigm. In contrast to the technical paradigm, the transactional paradigm has little to do with technical skill or expertise and more with how well that person is able to work with others and find solutions that everyone can accept. Quinn calls these "political" skills. The third type of paradigm is the transformational paradigm. This sort of person is internally motivated and willing to sacrifice themselves in order to enact their vision.
Quinn introduces the first two paradigms without suggesting that there is a third, but somehow I knew there would be a third. In my own life experience, I have not fit well into any of these paradigms. Initially, I did not have either the technical or transactional skills, but at heart I operated according to a transformational paradigm. Quinn doesn't really address this phenomenon. I wonder what he would have to say about it. From my own experience, I would say it's not really very useful and that these paradigms must build on each other (and Quinn does say that they build on each other rather than being interchangeable). I always struggled with having a vision for the world that I was incapable of achieving. I think that living out of this place for a long time undermined my self-confidence and optimism. It is now somewhat difficult for me to believe that I can make a positive change, even through self-sacrifice.
Eventually, I gained some measure of technical skill. I earned my bachelor's degree and started teaching English, a language that I know both as a native speaker and as a linguist. My struggle with my idealistic approach, however, created a strong disinclination to engage in a transactional paradigm or attempt to manage others. I have been, for many years, very happy to stick to teaching my class and let others do the managing. Then recently I was challenged to see this passivity as selfish and I started to engage, cautiously, in the managing/transactional paradigm (I joined committees and helped with negotiations). It turns out that I am fairly good at it as long as none of my principals are on the line.
The transformational paradigm still fills me with qualms, though. Those years of wanting so badly to change things and not being able to because I lacked the technical and transactional capital still haunt me. I want to stay in my shell. I want to just teach my class. I want to conduct research and write about it, somewhere further off stage. I don't know if that desire will ever change.
Quinn spends so much time talking about change for its own sake. He talks about how organizations must have change or they will die. He doesn't really give much direction on what kind of changes are necessary beyond saying something like, "Look into your heart. Face the truth and live with integrity." I wonder how much we can really fix the system as it exists, though. Maybe it needs to be taken down entirely, and we need to start over from scratch. After all, education is a servant to the status quo. Is it somewhat heretical to suggest that possibility of higher education in the United States? I think that might be an "undiscussable" topic in our program. I have to admit, I've run up against three or four of them since I came to Azusa.
Social Justice and Equity
During our orientation for this program, one of our instructors got up and presented the topic, "What is the purpose of higher education?" She had us listen to a short talk by an expert who said that higher education was in crisis in the Unites States and would be completely changed in twenty years. Then she passed around a handout of statements of purpose from maybe ten different presidents of higher education institutions in America.
As she talked, I skimmed through the various statements, and the feeling began to grow in me that these were not the people best qualified to answer this question. They represented the very establishment that was under attack and were therefore too invested to have honest answers. I flipped the handout over and wrote on the back, "Higher education exists to reinforce the established elite and to acculturate new members into that elite." After our discussion, I approached this teacher and showed her my written statement. I think I expected some kind of engagement, but that teacher glanced at what I had written and said, "Very nice," and turned away.
I have to admit, that was a very disappointing introduction to this program. I have since encountered other "undiscussible" topics, but this one troubles me the most. How can educators who say they are committed to equality and social justice ignore the intrinsic gate-keeping purpose of their own profession? If they don't believe their profession has that purpose, why don't they have a better answer for those who think it does? There seems to be so much effort to make higher education more accessible, but the more accessible we make it, the more education people will have to get in order to achieve the purpose of higher education: to join an elite who are distinguished as experts from the general hoi polloi. In this sense, pursuing equity and social justice in higher education ends up being a matter of chasing our own tail.
This is an undiscussible topic that under girds much of what we do in our program, and I know that I, for one, would very much benefit from an open discussion on it.
Monday, May 29, 2017
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Deep Change: Chapters 9 and 10
It's been a while since I've written in here because my life has been kind of crazy. I had to submit my comprehensive exams and grade my students' rough drafts, which is the most demanding grading project of my semester. However, I have handed all of those back and this is a holiday weekend, so I have time to catch up on my blog.
I read Quinn's (2008) Deep Change book, chapters nine and ten. Chapter nine is the final chapter on personal change, and chapter ten is the first chapter on corporate change.
In chapter nine, Quinn states that we need to "build the bridge as [we] walk on it." He states that we often don't know where we will go, but we need to believe that we are sufficient to get ourselves there. He says, "When we pursue our vision, we must believe that we have enough courage and confidence in ourselves to reach our goal." This statement is troubling to me because it seems to imply that we are our own measure of what we can do, and I don't think that measure is very reliable.
I attend a church service that is designed as an outreach to students. In a recent lesson, we were asked to reflect on the quality of truth. My student friend suggested that truth was whatever we agreed that it was. I noted that by his definition, any community could establish truth and as long as everyone agreed that it was truth, it was true. I pointed out that many wars start this way--when two large communities with different truth claims encounter each other. Terrorism is only the most recent focus of that kind of conflict. By his definition, the truth claim of a fundamentalist Muslim terrorist, that the death of the innocent is justified in order to protect and promote Islam, is legitimate because it is agreed upon by his community.
He then stated that truth was something we had to establish for ourselves. I asked him, "If I claimed as my truth that I no longer have to eat, does that make it true?" Answer was "no." I asked, "What would happen to me if I lived by this truth?" All of the students admitted that it would not be good for me... that I would eventually die. I observed that truth is not establish on a personal level but as a law in the world. One law that is generally recognized is "You must eat to live." Another one is that "if you drop your phone, it will likely break." This last law is called the law of gravity. The world does not really conform to suit us. We have to know its laws.
Quinn is suggesting that there is a law that says, whatever you set out to do, you will be able to do it--as long as you think you can. I don't really think that is true. The problem with truth is that if you get it wrong, you'll die. If I decide I don't have to eat, when I actually do, I will die. If I decide that I can jump off a five story building because the law of gravity doesn't apply to me, I will also likely die. Getting it right is important... but there is something to what Quinn says. I actually only think it makes sense within a Christian paradigm.
Quinn tells the story of Ghandi, saying that Ghandi wasn't surprised when resources started to show up because the thing he was trying to do was "right." This story reminded me of a well-known character in my own faith tradition. George Mueller was a English orphanage director who decided to take God at His word when He promised to provide. For years he ran an orphanage without any source of income or fundraising and God did provide. I think that Quinn's idea should be revised to say, "God will build the bridge that we are willing to walk." That undertaking is scary enough. I don't think I would want to try it if I was my own sole resource.
Social Justice and Equity
In chapter 10, Quinn begins to talk about how goals are formed and pursued in organizations. He notes that all organizations are made up of coalitions. The organization might state a public goal, but usually the operative goal of an organization is different. He notes, "The operative goals are usually congruent with the interests of the dominant coalition." As an example, he says that universities say they exist for their students but generally they exist for the interest of their faculty and administration. Recently, I've been helping with reform efforts in my own program, and I know what he says is very true. We spend very little time talking about how to improve things for the students. Most of our focus in on the faculty and their working conditions.
Quinn goes on to describe how this dynamic works in a business school that he worked with. I thought it was interesting that the dominant coalition was not willing to change until they realized that their survival was on the line, and even then, the change that they implemented was a matter of balancing their interests with those of the students. Quinn states:
Organizations are coalitional. The dominant coalition in an organization is seldom interested in making deep change. Hence deep change is often, but not always, driven from the outside. In the future, great business schools will still be built by hiring great researchers, but they are also likely to be expected to meet the needs of other constituencies. This will mean that they will have to meet a wider and often competing set of expectations. Competition and the motivation for survival will remain intense.
I wonder if this is one of those immutable laws, like gravity. Is it possible for a dominant coalition to put the interests of a coalition with less power before their own? Or is it always a matter of balancing interests? Social justice advocates often try to make dominant coalitions change without considering this instinct for self-preservation. In fact, such self-preservation is despised. Are advocates such as this breaking themselves against a natural law? How can outside forces be used to create this impetus for change? Or are those forces already in play?
I read Quinn's (2008) Deep Change book, chapters nine and ten. Chapter nine is the final chapter on personal change, and chapter ten is the first chapter on corporate change.
In chapter nine, Quinn states that we need to "build the bridge as [we] walk on it." He states that we often don't know where we will go, but we need to believe that we are sufficient to get ourselves there. He says, "When we pursue our vision, we must believe that we have enough courage and confidence in ourselves to reach our goal." This statement is troubling to me because it seems to imply that we are our own measure of what we can do, and I don't think that measure is very reliable.
I attend a church service that is designed as an outreach to students. In a recent lesson, we were asked to reflect on the quality of truth. My student friend suggested that truth was whatever we agreed that it was. I noted that by his definition, any community could establish truth and as long as everyone agreed that it was truth, it was true. I pointed out that many wars start this way--when two large communities with different truth claims encounter each other. Terrorism is only the most recent focus of that kind of conflict. By his definition, the truth claim of a fundamentalist Muslim terrorist, that the death of the innocent is justified in order to protect and promote Islam, is legitimate because it is agreed upon by his community.
He then stated that truth was something we had to establish for ourselves. I asked him, "If I claimed as my truth that I no longer have to eat, does that make it true?" Answer was "no." I asked, "What would happen to me if I lived by this truth?" All of the students admitted that it would not be good for me... that I would eventually die. I observed that truth is not establish on a personal level but as a law in the world. One law that is generally recognized is "You must eat to live." Another one is that "if you drop your phone, it will likely break." This last law is called the law of gravity. The world does not really conform to suit us. We have to know its laws.
Quinn is suggesting that there is a law that says, whatever you set out to do, you will be able to do it--as long as you think you can. I don't really think that is true. The problem with truth is that if you get it wrong, you'll die. If I decide I don't have to eat, when I actually do, I will die. If I decide that I can jump off a five story building because the law of gravity doesn't apply to me, I will also likely die. Getting it right is important... but there is something to what Quinn says. I actually only think it makes sense within a Christian paradigm.
Quinn tells the story of Ghandi, saying that Ghandi wasn't surprised when resources started to show up because the thing he was trying to do was "right." This story reminded me of a well-known character in my own faith tradition. George Mueller was a English orphanage director who decided to take God at His word when He promised to provide. For years he ran an orphanage without any source of income or fundraising and God did provide. I think that Quinn's idea should be revised to say, "God will build the bridge that we are willing to walk." That undertaking is scary enough. I don't think I would want to try it if I was my own sole resource.
Social Justice and Equity
In chapter 10, Quinn begins to talk about how goals are formed and pursued in organizations. He notes that all organizations are made up of coalitions. The organization might state a public goal, but usually the operative goal of an organization is different. He notes, "The operative goals are usually congruent with the interests of the dominant coalition." As an example, he says that universities say they exist for their students but generally they exist for the interest of their faculty and administration. Recently, I've been helping with reform efforts in my own program, and I know what he says is very true. We spend very little time talking about how to improve things for the students. Most of our focus in on the faculty and their working conditions.
Quinn goes on to describe how this dynamic works in a business school that he worked with. I thought it was interesting that the dominant coalition was not willing to change until they realized that their survival was on the line, and even then, the change that they implemented was a matter of balancing their interests with those of the students. Quinn states:
Organizations are coalitional. The dominant coalition in an organization is seldom interested in making deep change. Hence deep change is often, but not always, driven from the outside. In the future, great business schools will still be built by hiring great researchers, but they are also likely to be expected to meet the needs of other constituencies. This will mean that they will have to meet a wider and often competing set of expectations. Competition and the motivation for survival will remain intense.
I wonder if this is one of those immutable laws, like gravity. Is it possible for a dominant coalition to put the interests of a coalition with less power before their own? Or is it always a matter of balancing interests? Social justice advocates often try to make dominant coalitions change without considering this instinct for self-preservation. In fact, such self-preservation is despised. Are advocates such as this breaking themselves against a natural law? How can outside forces be used to create this impetus for change? Or are those forces already in play?
Saturday, May 6, 2017
Hiatus for Comps
Because my comprehensive exams are due in a little over a week, I am going to take a break from writing in this blog for two weeks. I will post again by May 22.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)