Individual traits, inculcated, acquired, and habituated over the course of a person’s lifetime (their psychology) are often barriers to transforming how a person understands the world. Systemic barriers created by the characteristics of our method of enterprise will ALWAYS confound transformation until we change that system, irrespective of an individual’s understanding and desire for change.
What approaches are available for a teacher/mentor to go about initiating a transformation of people’s understanding of how the world works?
Approach 1 (Theory) – The teacher/mentor can begin with theory, presenting a compelling logic and supporting it with observations that demonstrate the predictive power or the theory. In doing so, he/she appeals to reason, hoping that the new theory will ultimately be adopted as a model for understanding. In this case, the teacher/mentor’s first objective is to change the way individual people think.
Approach 2 (Practice) – The teacher/mentor can begin with practice, putting people to work doing things in new ways without recourse to theoretical explanation (Vladimir’s suggestion). In doing so, the teacher/mentor relies on the effectiveness of new methods to speak for themselves, hoping for a grand AHA to emerge at some critical point along the way. In this case the teacher/mentor’s first objective is to change the way the system of people acts.
Approach 3 (Incrementalism) – The teacher/mentor can begin in the middle, piece by piece. A little theory here, a little practice there. He/she attempts to reduce the big picture into elements that can be understood and acquired incrementally. In doing so, the teacher/mentor hopes that small gains will eventually add up to large gains. The teacher/mentor’s first objective is to change the way people think and act, step-by-step and bit-by-bit.
My habit is to use Approach 1 because I delight in the big picture and enjoy exploring the nuances and implications of well formed theory, but I have found the most audiences are either unwilling or unable to follow the logic of grand theory. A friend and colleague is fond of telling me, “You know what your problem is Marc? You always bring the WHOLE THING. It’s a load!”
My greatest successes have occurred when applying Approach 2. This method is truly subversive. It requires leadership. In previous postings I have discussed my experiences with this approach in the context of my tenure as a high school principal. Implementing this approach from the role of teacher/mentor requires a “don’t ask, just do it” relationship with organizational leadership.
I have had the least success with Approach 3, though its step-by-step formalism has great appeal to audiences. Despite its appeal, it’s incrementalism leads audiences to draw ill-informed conclusions. They believe they’ve “got it”, only to be jerked back by a new revelation that contradicts what they thought they “got”. The teacher/mentor implies a THERE at the conclusion of each step, but we never get THERE because there is no THERE. In other words, there are no “right” answers. Despite his awareness of this problem and his efforts to avoid it, this was a pitfall of the Deming’s 14 Points. Students could do some of the “right” things and still understand nothing. Nothing gained!
