John Gunkler writes...
>Fred Nickols and I are having a dialogue that is very helpful to me about
>how we use goal language.
Good; it is helpful to me, too.
>>Fred (earlier in LO21250)...
>>It is common enough to refer to an organization's action but organizations
>>don't do anything; people do.
>John:
>Once again, Fred (just like last time), there is a way of understanding
>what you say that I have to agree with. It is common sense.
>
>However, if you really believe that an organization's are simply the
>actions of the people within it, how can you explain the actions of a mob?
>Okay, okay, it is the people in the mob who are doing the acting -- that's
>true enough. But there are many cases where the action taken by those
>people goes against the moral values of EVERY member of the mob!
Mob behavior and Janis's "group think" are common and widely noted
behavioral phenomena. I don't know that anyone has a full accounting of
them. However, when you say above that the actions taken by the members
of a mob go against the moral values of every member of the mob, about all
I can do is reply, "Yeah, so what?" I don't mean that as a wisecrack but
as a way of calling into question the implied assertion that moral values
govern behavior. I don't think it's that simple.
>For example, there have been groups of people (none of whom believe that
>it is correct to burn down another's property) who set fire to a building.
>If there aren't group "goals" that can be distinguished from individuals'
>goals, how could this occur?
One way it could occur is if the individual mob members justified the
burning by accepting what they perceived to be the judgment of the group
and they are simply "going along with the program" (or, worse yet, "Doing
their duty."). Another way it could occur is if the individual group
members acted out of fear that resistance would turn the vicious behavior
of other mob members toward them (it's a simple matter of "protective
coloration" of "blending in"). A third way is if the individual members
justify it to themselves on an exception basis, that is, the circumstances
in this case warrant behaving in ways that go against one's personal code.
I'm sure that other explanations can be conjured up too.
>And please don't get weird about inferences. My ethics professors taught
>me that inferences from behavior are the only way to arrive at the "real"
>beliefs or values of anyone, including oneself.
I'm not getting "weird about inferences" -- at least I don't think I am.
Indeed, I'm about to draw some of my own. From your reference to beliefs
and values, especially to the "real" ones, I assume (or infer) that you
are of the mind that behavior is constrained by (i.e., must comply with)
beliefs and values. Do I have that right?
>My point is not to argue philosophy.
Nor is it mine.
>I have spent my career working with organizational culture change.
Me too.
>I came to this field from a background in individual (behavioral) psychology.
Me too.
>I thought it was absurd to talk of
>the psychology (or anything else) of a group apart from the
>characteristics of its component people. But I discovered that there is
>much power in groups, and that it makes sense (even if it is something of
>a shorthand way of speaking) to talk about group characteristics.
Me too. My problem is that some don't know it's shorthand and some never
knew it in the first place.
>If I
>hadn't accepted this, I would have had to deny the power of culture change
>to affect individuals' behavior.
Hmm. I'll have to ask you to say more about what you mean by "culture
change" before I can respond to that comment.
>I would have been doomed to try
>one-to-one interventions, which would never have worked to change an
>organization. Instead, I work with group-level interventions. I get
>people to make things different for the group, then stand back and watch
>as individual behavior changes wholesale!
I don't know what to say.
>I am simply being a pragmatist when I talk about groups having goals.
And I think I am being a pragmatist when I say they don't. After all,
John, if I conclude that the goal of the group of which I am a member is
to burn someone else's property, my choices are pretty stark: I can go
along with the program and burn the property, I can withdraw from the
group, I can attempt to change everyone else's mind, or I can go passive
and stand by while the rest of them burn the property. Group goals, in my
opinion, are often (although not always nor even most of the time)
fictions created to manipulate individuals into complying with the wishes
and aims of those in power.
As I wrote in a poem published almost 25 years ago, "Remember, all those
goals and objectives are nothing more than human directives, conveying
some boss's valued "druthers" (to be achieved through the labor of
others)."
(The poem was titled "The Systems View" and it appeared simultaneously in
The OD Practitioner and the NSPI Journal in 1975. On the off-chance that
anyone has the remotest interest in the entire poem, it can be found at
http://home.att.net/~nickols/articles.htm ).
Thanks, John, for making this a reasoned rational discussion...
[Host's Note: And, thanks Fred for the poem... I enjoyed it very much.
...Rick]
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>