1. Theory-in Use: Words, Seated
Here is the starting point (as far as we can define one when looking at wholes): The way in which we do things (in life, in organizations, at work…) rests on assumptions, ideas, theories, and worldviews. As a supporting theoretical perspective on this stance, I have found Argyris/Schoen’s distinctions between espoused theories (what we say we do and why) and theories-in-use (what is really guiding our actual behavior)[1] a very helpful distinction. Contemporary research in the cognitive and biological sciences provides much additional insight as to why it is appropriate to be skeptical of our own statements regarding what we say our motivations for decisions are. The superior processing speed of information in our emotional and movement systems regularly outpace the conscious brain with its much slower speeds (and limitations in attention) – we literally “don’t know” a lot about what drives us, even when we think we do.
In light of this, when looking at change methodologies “in action”, what is very striking to me is how very “mental” and “verbal” in their conduct and emphasis they mostly are. Yes, there may be sophisticated conversations about spirituality and values, vision and energy – and yet, as the actual activity of it, you will usually find: People sitting and talking (or otherwise producing words). This is where much faith for change resides – words, seated.
2. A Very Brief Exploration of Underpinnings
This raises the question: What are the theories-in-use which drive this form (words, seated)? What are we perpetuating, possibly without intending to do so, by carrying forward these particular theories-in-use embedded in the form without making them transparent and available also to change within a change process?
The following is a condensation of some observations, a miniscule philosophical excursion, and summaries of spoken comments by individuals whom I have worked with over time:
From a very young age, practices of education and views of intelligence emphasize the mind. Hence, a focus on the “mental” level becomes correlated with competence, success and status. The underpinning philosophical strands of Descartes (Cartesian split between mind and body) as well as Enlightenment-age views on the primacy of rationality are well-embedded here, and are carried forward into organizations and workplaces. Further along the path, expressions of emotions, ease, fun and joy in the workplace also become labeled as symptoms of insufficient commitment or seriousness and thus, lack of professionalism, further reducing the frame of what “work” (and valuable employees) are: A head that is carried around on a body, without valued emotional or sensing components while engaged in this process of “business”.
Interestingly though, we are presently in fairly turbulent times. Word of disruptive shifts, needs for new ideas, demands for creativity fills the offices, executive search lists and various publications. At the same time, a fair bit of literature documents that much “change management” is not working all that well, by and large, even though significant resources are applied to it. So, where is the gap?
3. Means or End?
The way I look at it, one factor for the limited impact made with change processes, is that of not looking at the “how” (the theories in use) of change tools – such as how we view humans, how we exclude a huge aspect of human capacities from the change or problem-solving process, how we define ourselves as two- or thee-partite structures –a view of humans as not-whole and not-biological entities separate from our ecologies.
When working with groups in business, in particular, I have found that “making a lot of words” around these “how” aspects as a starting point is not very useful. More often than not, words and abstractions about unfamiliar terrain create indifference, resistance or confusion – and practically no momentum.
Instead, it has been a more productive approach to act as a facilitator who is guided by and embodies assumptions of a different “how”, thereby opening doors into new experiences. The experience, be it a breathing pattern which creates relief by freeing up a long-established “stuckness”, be it an experiment with tasting mindfulness and an attendant state, be it the exploration of new patterns of movement and its connection to judgment, communication or organization culture, or whatever particular exercise is used at the time, gently and with immediacy informs a person of a new option or possibility.
In turn, this opens avenues into accessing new resources and enables new thinking (the thinking mind catches up ..). By working with a wide range of human facilities, over-use of one (typically, linear thinking) is reduced and energy becomes available. Gradually, through increased experience and practice (as well as reflection and conversation – they have a place!), more salient questions emerge, further choices become available, new theories-in-use are formed. An integrated newness manifests on multiple levels. Over time, states of higher integration (both biological and social), resiliency and resourcefulness are available to make the change at hand – or lead to the discovery that greater integration, resiliency and resourcefulness are the change that was needed in the first place.
[1] Argyris, M. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice. Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Landmark statement of ‘double-loop’ learning’ and distinction between espoused theory and theory-in-action.
