Quinn & Sonenshein (2008) strategies for affecting change in human systems

Question 1

1) Empirical-rational (telling strategy):

Answer 1

Expects self-interested rationality. Will adopt a proposed change if the proposed changes are rationally justified, and the change agents demonstrates the benefit. This approach emphasizes that if the target has a justifiable reason to change (for self-interest), change comes from simply telling the target about the change.

Question 2

2) Power-coercive (forcing strategy):

Answer 2

Change efforts in which a more powerful person imposes his or her will on a less powerful person. The change agent seemingly exercises coercion that ranges from subtle manipulation to the direct use of physical force. The main advantage is effective and rapid results. However, this comes at the expense of damaging relationships and trust.

Question 3

3) Normative-reeducative (participating strategy):

Answer 3

Views people as rationally self-interested, but emphasizes changes in a target’s values, skills and relationship. This approach understands people as inherently social, guided by a normative culture that influences behaviors. To successfully guide the changes, this method relies on trainers, therapists, or other change agents.

In day-to-day, people often use the telling strategy but if that does not work rely on the forcing strategy. The participation strategy is less common. It is more time-consuming, takes greater skills and defies our normal assumptions about the need for control (which is difficult for a manager). However, the results are extraordinary or even unnatural. ‘’trust the process’’.

Question 4

4) The fourth strategy: Advanced Change Theory (ACT)

Answer 4

At the heart of ACT is what we call self-transcendence or the transformation strategy. The following is based on studying Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Jesus.

Fundamental arguments:
- First, all systems must acquire energy from the external environment. To do this, the system must be aligned with the continuously changing external environment.
- Second, we are all hypocrites: we claim to be committed only when those ends are consistent with our self-interests. We espouse values at one level and exhibit incongruent behaviors at another (integrity gaps). Our goal is not extraordinary achievement but the preservation of the status quo (stay in comfort zone).
- Third, we can all become more effective change agents by reducing integrity gaps. We can enter a proactive state, a state of leadership. Not given by a formal function such as CEO, but by state of being.
- Fourth, we become effective leaders or change agents when we examine our integrity gaps and make a fundamental commitment to pursue higher purposes. When entering the state of leadership we become internally driven and more externally open. We become more purpose centered and other focused.
- Fifth, when entering the state of leadership, in the existing transactional system, we become a positive deviant. As we act with greater moral power, we distort the existing system, and others must make sense of us.