Create Conditions for Change
Are you frustrated with your group or an organization? Do you have the courage to change in order to become an advocate for systemic change in your setting? Consider becoming an advocate for change. While not without risk, a small group of people in common cause can often make big differences in the status quo!
Contents
Steps
- Determine your institution's goals and objectives. Knowing your enemy is a key aspect of military strategy, which applies well here. The individual must determine what the goals of the institution are. This assumes both stated and real goals. An understanding of the goals helps focus individual action. If some goals are mutually held, well and good: let that be a definable point of confluence. When goals are not commonly held, define clearly the goals and their differences and use this data as part of a plan to act. The same applies for institutional process, how the institution does things. Define this clearly, painstakingly. Identify points of agreement and disagreement. Focus on individual priorities. Unless this analysis is carefully done and continually revised, the individual flounders, lacks focus, and grasps at straws. Tremendous energy is wasted, dissipated, and the individual is left ineffective, often frustrated and bitter, and all for no apparent reason.
- Analyze your own personal goals and processes. Implied in the above strategy is a personal goals and processes definition. What is the individual about? What are the goals? What does the individual believe in passionately? What significantly? What not at all? How much ego-tripping is involved? How comfortable is the individual with self? Why relate to an institution at all? Why this institution? How do the goals converge? How do they grate?
- Investigate the theory of coterie. Early in encountering an institution, identify like-minded people who may become mutual supporters. This need not take on the aspect of a conspiracy, but it may. Conspiracy is a word with two Latin roots meaning "breathing together," not a bad idea at all. One example of the effectiveness of this strategy is Bell Kaufman's case in Up the Down Staircase. The teacher seeks to survive and affect a hostile New York City high school. Her one friend in the school supports her, sends her silly notes, encourages, understands and cares for her. Kaufman seems only minimally aware that her effect on the friend is mutual. Support groups, coteries, can be two or more persons who share goals. The support system, which evolves, may be formal or informal. The effect can be personal support, confrontation, stroking, and caring. It can also be intellectual support, challenging assumptions, clarifying goals, testing hypotheses, and designing strategy. The latter support system is the conspiracy model, although be open to collaboration with others, especially leadership! It may have both the active intellectual attributes and the personal support mechanisms.
- Engage in risk assessment. Some situations can be diagnosed early as unworkable for some individuals. The energy consumed in seeking to resolve the unresolvable is unreasonable. Personal and institutional growth comes from struggle and risk. The resolution of the conflicts should be possible before mammoth commitment is made. It is important as the individual considers affiliations with an institution to assess the risks involved. What are the worst things that can happen to me? What are the best things? What are the implications of failure, personally and professionally? Is the risk worth the taking? There is no point in risking all for a soggy marshmallow. Significant influence upon institutions usually implies significant risk. Determining which are the significant risks and taking them is the essence of the art of the change-making individual. Excellence is always worth the effort, but may not be worth the cost.
- Develop strategies. When a clear awareness of individual and institutional goals has been gained, a specific strategy and set of strategies is possible. The strategies depend upon goals, possible ties within the institution and skills of the individual. Strategies need in-flight correction mechanisms so that the strategy can respond to change as the need arises. The strategy should have a reasonable margin of success and be clearly defined.
- Expand into a vacuum. This strategy was developed and effected with brilliance by Fred Demara, the Great Impostor. He reasoned that the individual could succeed in the institution as long as the individual did not threaten anyone. Creative thrusts were always into uncharted territory, and he always gave as wide credit as possible to everyone available. He advised never to intimidate, never to covet the job or prerogatives of others, always to develop new and complementary modes. Demara, of course, developed a number of other strategies based upon his correct perception of institutional ineffectiveness. Many of these strategies reflected his own special talent and ethical system.
- View the institution from the perspective of leadership. Institutional leaders have unique perspectives and problems as they see the institution and its function. In order to understand their decisions and influence, their perspective must be sought. Sometimes this new data brings about new and comforting understanding. Sometimes the data makes more clear institutional goals that are contrary to individual goals. In either event, the data is valuable for strategic reasons.
- Support the best efforts of fellow members. In a spirit of sharing and concern for others, offer the widest possible support to those who are seeking to meet goals compatible with your own; collaborate whenever possible. The positive value of the action benefits the individual, the institution, and the other folk involved.
- Support all criticism and recommendation for change. Be prepared to deal with questions and concerns from all conceivable perspectives as you move to change the institution. Consider carefully before hand; reflect rather than defend. Document what you say from several points of view.
- Be anxious to evaluate, to be evaluated. When the individual initiates evaluation, the individual can control the processes of evaluation. If the individual is open to evaluation and scrutiny, then others cannot force an evaluation according to criteria and process which would be skewed against the individual's interest. Shape evaluation to be compatible with mandated assessments where-ever possible.
Tips
- The struggle between the individual and the institution is a creative tension. The individual has the power to control the relationship. The risks to the individual and the sanctions possible are also within the power of the individual to predict and to control. The dynamics of change are dynamics of challenge, of hope, and of testing of the limits of vision and humanity.
Warnings
- On integrity...History repeats for us over and over the story of revolutionaries, revisionists and reformers who, in battling institutions, embody in themselves all the worst attributes of the institutions they oppose. Few who aspire to change governments do so with the hope of increasing oppression, and yet we see that often this is the effect of their triumph.
- The case of the change agent creating change more damaging than the status quo is a sobering case for all. Integrity, first principles and truth seem easily to erode during the process of growing success. It is a question of the allowed situational ethic, the small compromise, the tiny movement off the course which comes to dominate and overwhelm. It is the individual ceding control over the self and environment around self, and allowing being to be determined by other forces. Vigilance is necessary, and constantly necessary.
- One way to keep guard is by employing a planned and periodic re-examination of goals and processes. What do I hold true? How can I achieve these goals while still remaining consistent with what I hold true? Perilous times are no warrant to compromise one's integrity.
