COMBINING STRATEGIES

Is it possible to entertain the notion that humans are rational, social creatures who want to solve their hidden problems but also want to protect and enhance their vested interests? If we make such an assumption, we must combine our strategies for change—as did Jack Lindquist (1978) in Strategies for Change. Rational research and planning is not enough—nor is connecting innovations to opinion leaders in all the right ways. Nor is skilled intervention to diagnose human needs and to reduce resistance—nor is the most effective political maneuvering. We must do it all.

Planned change starts with a “felt need” on the potential user’s part, on the part of the person, group or organization which might change. Something is wrong; something needs improvement. A diagnosis is conducted and a problem statement emerges. Then there is a search and retrieval of alternate solutions both inside and outside the user system. Some solution for the local situation then is developed and approved. Application follows. Often this implementation raises another need which starts the cycle all over again.

In essence, all effective change projects involve a basic act of communication—an interactive process, with all parties involved as sources and receivers of change messages and with all focused on solving the receiver’s problem. In such a model, all of the problem-solvers (including those that are external to the organization) would employ rational planning, the R&D model, probably with the help of experts in research or development. All would exchange messages through social networks, perhaps with the assistance of skilled linking agents. All parties would confront and resolve human barriers to change, and an applied behavioral science interventionist could be of valuable assistance there. All parties would use, or run against, power and authority, and a political strategist would come in handy.

SUMMARY

What brings about changes in attitudes and behaviors? Some believe that humans are essentially rational, so reason and evidence should do the trick. Intentional change, therefore, takes the form of a rational sequence of activities to produce a change message based in theory and research, then developed and tested empirically and logically and finally accepted because of its sound evidence and reason. Research and Development centers, institutional research and planning offices and formal governance systems are designed to operate as if change is mainly a rational process. At the heart of any evidence-based initiative in coaching (or any other field) is this assumption about rationality. Highly effective coaches know this.