The last three chapters of Quinn's (2008) book on deep change address how the inner life of an individual affects a community. In chapter 21, Quinn talks about developing a vision, and most notably, uses Ghandi's approach to developing a vision as a ideal example. Ghandi traveled throughout India talking to people and finally developed a vision that everyone found compelling, addressing people's desire for "bread and salt." Quinn states that a leader must find the "inner voice" of the organization and speak from that knowledge.
In the notes at the end of the chapter, Quinn gives the statement that one CEO developed for his organization. In those notes was this statement:
We tell them that they should be empowered. Occasionally, they make the mistake of taking us seriously and act on their own. For a moment, they become responsible adults. Their act of independence makes us uncomfortable, and we let them know how we really feel. They respond in amazement, "Oh, that is what you meant by empowerment. Now I understand. You don't need to worry anymore" (Kindle Locations 1758-1761).
This statement really resonated with me because I have experienced this event in so many situations. I'm the type to say what I mean and take other people at their word. I have recently been told that this is a very impractical thing to do, that "normal" people don't say what they mean. I really rebel against that kind of pragmatism, though, because to me, the idea that we accept that this is inevitably the system means that we have accepted this "slow death" that Quinn talks about. I hate that idea. I think I would rather be kicked out of a program for speaking out than accept that idea. I suppose that is the crux of Quinn's vision of deep change. Sometimes the system accepts one's honesty and sometimes it ejects the person. Sometimes, I suppose, it does both. It is hard to love an organization enough to accept that final outcome.
In chapter 22, Quinn gives the example of a Quaker, named John Woolman, who used his disruptive--but not confrontational--vision to convince other Quakers to give up slavery. Finally, in the last chapter, Quinn addressed the idea of empowerment, pointing out that people generally have different ideas of what empowerment means. Even as he was describing the two competing visions, I was speculating about my own view. I thought that the two views should be combined, and sure enough, that was Quinn's idea also.
He makes the statement, right at the end of the book, that leaders can create environments where empowerment is possible, but people need to empower themselves. That struck me as quite apropos. I try to structure my own class so that initiative is rewarded. However, there is only so much I can do to create space for students to strike out. If I make things too unstructured, the students are completely lost, not least because their Chinese classes tend to be so structured and we don't share common cultural assumptions about what a classroom experience is supposed to be. The disappointing part is that so few students try to stand up or really challenge the system that I have set in place. I wish they would, but mostly they just do the things that I make them do with as little thought as possible... *sigh* I am rather pragmatic as a teacher, because I spent so much time as a student. I have often behaved the same way.
Social Justice and Equity
John Woolman's one-man fight against slavery is a good challenge that we can take on social injustice even as one person and make a difference if we really hold to our vision strongly and understand the people we are trying to persuade. I think Quinn would agree that part of Woolman's success was that he was a Quaker himself. Sometimes we think it is enough to have the high moral ground, but being able to understand others' values and speak to those values in our efforts to confront social injustice is really important.
I mentioned that idea to one of the teachers in our program last intensive--that a lot of the reason that Trump won the election was that many social justice advocates had stopped listening to the people they were trying to persuade. We cannot force people to accept change--without a costly civil war, anyway--and even then it is not really successful, as Quinn notes. If we want the change to really come from the heart we have to deeply understand and appeal humbly to the people we are trying to change by asking real questions. Social justice advocacy is floundering in the United States for this reason: nobody is really listening anymore. There is a lot of, "Please tell us what you think... so we can point out how wrong you are."
No comments:
Post a Comment