Change Psychology: Correspondent Inference Theory

recently wrote about building up a resource for Change knowledge here within this very Blog. Finally I got the time to deal with some basic psychological questions of Change. I am looking forward to be able to share those insights on “Change Psychology” with you, here.

Description
When we are making attributions about other people, we compare their actions with alternative actions, evaluating the choices they have made. It is easier for us to make internal attributions when there fewer non-common effects between these choices. That is, when both choices have a lot in common and there are thus fewer things which differentiate them. When the behavior is not what we would have forecast, we assume that it is due to their internal preferences or character traits.

Information about five factors is sought to make these inferences:

  • Whether the behavior being considered is voluntary and freely chosen.
  • What is unexpected about the behavior (‘non-common effects’).
  • Whether the behavior is socially desirable.
  • Whether the behavior impacts the person doing the inferring (‘hedonic relevance’).
  • Whether the behavior is of personal interest to the person doing the inferring (‘personalism’).

Example
A person is choosing between two jobs. They are very similar apart from location and salary. This makes it easier for us to attribute their choice to the person’s individual preferences. If they choose the lower salary job, it is easy for us to assume that the person is not money-driven.

Using it
When surprised by another person’s actions, it may seem obvious that this is because this is just because of ‘who they are’. We should be careful to look closer in these cases as this may not be true.

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)
Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Posted in Change Basics, Change Definitions, Change Tools, Get ready for Change, Psychology of Change, Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Change Psychology: Correspondence Bias

recently wrote about building up a resource for Change knowledge here within this very Blog. Finally I got the time to deal with some basic psychological questions of Change. I am looking forward to be able to share those insights on “Change Psychology” with you, here.

Description
When we see a person doing something, we tend to assume that they are doing this more because this is ‘how they are’ — that is because of their internal disposition — than the external environmental situational factors.

There are four main reasons for this correspondence bias:

  1. Lack of awareness. If you do not know that a person is being threatened, then you are far more likely to assume they have a nervous disposition. This can easily happen when the situation is not physically apparent, such as when a person is in the first day of a new job.
  2. Unrealistic expectations. If I believe that a teacher is all-knowing, then I expect their first lesson to be as good as their hundredth. Likewise if they have just taught a lesson that bombed. Even if am aware of these factors, I expect them to perform consistently.
  3. Inflated categorization. My expectations of the teacher are made worse if I expect all teachers to be equally competent. Likewise, if I categorize all questions as showing that you don’t know things, then I might assume that when the teacher asks the student questions it is because the teacher does not know the answer.
  4. Incomplete corrections. I can further infer incorrectly about the teachers questions, such as that they are asking the wrong questions and hence do no understand their subject.

Research
Jones and Harris found that people decided that students who had written pro- or anti-Castro essays were actually pro- or anti-Castro, even when the participants knew that the students had been instructed to write the essays in this way.

Example
When I buy something from the corner shop and the owner does not serve me with a smile, I assume it is because he is a miserable old fool.

Using it
If you want a person to be perceived by others to have a certain disposition, maneuver them into a situation where they perform actions whereby it may easily be assume that this is because of their disposition.

Defending
When you do something and others are observing, think about how they are attributing to your disposition. Correct their perception as necessary.

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)
Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Posted in Change Basics, Change Definitions, Change Tools, Get ready for Change, Psychology of Change, Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Change Psychology: Core Group Theory

recently wrote about building up a resource for Change knowledge here within this very Blog. Finally I got the time to deal with some basic psychological questions of Change. I am looking forward to be able to share those insights on “Change Psychology” with you, here.

The actual Objective of the modern Corporation
Kleiner makes the bold statement that what comes first in every organization is: keeping the Core Group satisfied (normally most of the top managers). And yet, according to Kleiner, Core Groups are not inherently bad or dysfunctional. They are rather necessary and even the best hope we have for ennobling humanity, since organizations are natural amplifiers of human capability. An organization’s Core Group is also the source of its energy, drive and direction. Or more accurately, any organization goes wherever its people perceive that the Core Group needs and wants to let it go. Non-members depend upon the Core Group for direction. The Core Group and its members depend upon the non-members for their legitimacy.

Core Groups are normally not mentioned in any organization chart. Compare: Organization Chart. They exist only in people’s hearts and minds. After some time, organizations will resemble their Core Group and act like it. And automatically pivot and twist to give the members of the Core Group what they think they want and need, without even asking them. Great Core Groups hold an essential form of knowledge. They set the context that establishes this knowledge as significant.

How do Core Groups become so Powerful?
Kleiner explains that the mechanism is based on guesswork and amplification. People who are not in the Core Group try to guess what it is the Core Group wants. So even a casual remark in passing by a Core Group member can be amplified to a shift of direction of an entire division. As a consequence, top managers need to be very cautious in what they say. According to Kleiner, concepts like the Balanced Scorecard do not really change this. Although more objective measurements may be used and there is better strategic communication top-down, still a lot of guesswork remains: people assume that they should interpret the numbers according to what they perceive the Core Group really wants, And people also assume they should interpret the Core Group according to the numbers: if the measurements send a clear signal, then people assume that is where the Core Group wants the organization to go. According to Kleiner, Core Group dynamics also prevent organizations from changing easily. Both the Core Group and the non-core employees are interested in maintaining the status quo.

Expanded Core Group Organizations
Kleiner suggests that is it is possible to create “Expanded-Core-Group Organizations”.

To do this, the following elements are suggested:

  • employee securities (stock) ownership plans
  • financial literacy
  • non-hierarchical decision-making
  • comprehensive (financial and strategy) training programs

This is where Core Group theory is not unlike Value Based Management thinking
As far as the Value Creation part of VBM is concerned, it is important to decide whether an organization should aim primarily at maximizing shareholder value to take the position that in reality the Core Group comes first. The last is essentially a form of Stakeholder Value Perspective. Thus Core Group dynamics can provide an explanation for the phenomenon in which companies, despite having adopted the maximizing shareholder value philosophy, are not being very responsive to shareholders needs. Sometimes Core Group members believe mistakenly, that the organization’s first task is to keep up the share price. The easiest way of doing that is: the presentation of slowly but steadily growing positive quarterly results. Through guesswork and amplification the entire organizati will follow a Core Group that makes this serious mistake. The organization will support the Core Group in providing a manipulated and wrong picture of the reality instead of what really should be done: taking decisions that maximize shareholder (or stakeholders) value.

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)
Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Posted in Change Basics, Change Definitions, Change Tools, Get ready for Change, Psychology of Change, Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Change Psychology: Conversion

recently wrote about building up a resource for Change knowledge here within this very Blog. Finally I got the time to deal with some basic psychological questions of Change. I am looking forward to be able to share those insights on “Change Psychology” with you, here.

Description
This is a sudden change in beliefs, such as when someone ‘experiences’ a religious conversion. The experience is often felt very strongly and leads to radical changes in behaviors. Cults often attract people who are searching for meaning in their lives and who have built up massive tension around this. The converts experience a significant emotional release, often within a carefully engineered context of ritual and socialization, as they ‘see the light’.

When this happens to an individual, it is often after they have been thinking about something for some time, and a cognitive breakthrough at last appears. This happens with beliefs much in the same way as an inventor or scientist gets an ‘eureka’ experience on how to solve a problem.

Example
When H.G. Wells’ ‘War of the Worlds’ was read on the US radio by Orson Welles in 1938, many listeners suddenly believed the world really was being attacked by aliens, and mass panic ensued. This was due to the ‘news broadcast’ style that was used, as well as the way radio-listening was, at that time, a social activity. The impending war probably did not help either.

Using it
Find or build significant tensions in the other person. Let them build to almost breaking point, where they are desperately looking for a solution. Then provide the solution, preferably in an engineered context where all cues point to the same conclusion. Follow up by giving them experiences that allow them to ‘prove’ the change to themselves.

Defending
When you have a significant tension in your life, such as when you have been searching for meaning, beware of people offering pat solutions. In particular question what they might be getting (or might ask in return) from your conversion.

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)
Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Posted in Change Basics, Change Definitions, Change Tools, Get ready for Change, Psychology of Change, Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Change Psychology: Control Theory

recently wrote about building up a resource for Change knowledge here within this very Blog. Finally I got the time to deal with some basic psychological questions of Change. I am looking forward to be able to share those insights on “Change Psychology” with you, here.

Description
We have a deep need for control that itself, paradoxically, controls much of our lives. The endless effort to control can lead us to be miserable as we fail in this impossible task of trying to control everything and everyone around us. The alternative is to see the world as a series of choices, which is why Glasser later renamed Control Theory as Choice Theory.

Using it
Give people things to control, help them control the things in their path, or threaten their sense of control.

Defending
Do not try to control everything — instead see the world as a series of choices.
Indeep Informations on the Theory

Control theory implies an active role, or responsibility towards ones behavior. Much of his book is concerned with the behaviors we choose as we attempt to control our lives. Glasser claims that all behavior is made up of three components: what we do, what we think, and what we feel. According to Glasser, all behavior is an attempt to satisfy powerful forces within ourselves. He argues that regardless of our circumstances, all we do, think, and feel is always or best attempt at the time to satisfy the forces within us.

Sometimes this behavior may be ineffective or even destructive. For example, Glasser describes psychosomatic Illness, drug addiction, and other radical behaviors as an individuals struggling to gain control of their lives in the best way they know how. Conversely, he illustrates why some people give up when feeling they have lost control. This ineffective behavior may persists even when other options later become available.
Others may choose depressing or anxieting, or perhaps the act of headaching or phobicking may make more sense to them. For Glasser, feelings are better expressed as verbs. Adjectives such as depressed and anxious or nouns such as headache or phobia suggest a passive role. Glasser expresses the importance of this sort of language. By using the right language carefully we may emphasis our control over everyday situations.
Glasser explains in his book why we are typically unaware that we choose much of our misery. Glasser gives four reasons why we choose misery. They include:

  • to keep angering under control
  • to get others to help us out
  • to excuse our unwillingness to do something more effective
  • to gain powerful control

By accept misery is a choice, Glasser predicts you will find better choices to replace it. Glasser states, “We almost always have choices, and the better the choice, the more we will be in control of our lives.” This includes choices of not only how to act but how we feel as well. How we feel is not controlled by others or events, unless we choose to allow it to. He understands that we sometimes feel we’ve lost control of their lives or we feel we’re in a hopeless situation. Even in these situations, Glasser maintains that we can choose to feel miserable or we can learn to make better choices that are available to us.

Glasser invites the reader to think of at least a few people who they know who made a better choice than misery when they have been laid off from a good job. He points out that somehow, without fear or resentment, they dealt with this situation as a challenge and chose not to be overwhelmed.

Even for those of us who may not be in such a desperate situation, Glasser claims taking control of our lives is more likely when understanding control theory. By putting control theory to work in our lives, we will spend our energy attacking the problem rather than blaming it. Glasser urges us to take the time to figure out flexible and creative behaviors that may be more effective in our lives.

Beyond the need to breath, Glasser identifies five needs that together make up the forces that seem to drive most people. They include:

  • the need to survive and reproduce
  • the need to belong (love, share, and cooperate)
  • the need for power
  • the need for freedom and
  • the need for fun

He seems to recognize that their may be other needs but he sees these five to be the predominate needs of most individuals. Glasser specifies control is not a need; it is a way we must function to fulfill our needs.

Glasser states, “… our need to belong; because we need each other, we are willing to accept some control-but not too much. Our lives, therefore, are a continual struggle to gain control in a way that we satisfy our needs and not deprive those around us, especially those close to us, of satisfying theirs.”

Glasser describes how early on we learn how to deal with our environment to satisfy our needs. Behaviors and values that satisfied our needs in the past often may not serve as the best means later on in life or under different circumstances.

Glasser illustrates, when we satisfy a need by doing something, we store a picture of what satisfies us in a place in our heads. Glasser calls this place our personal picture album. We learn early on that when we want to satisfy a need we will start turning the pages of our album. Glasser points out, though, we often have pictures in our albums that can not be satisfied in the real world. Our relentless effort to satisfy our pictures may become self-destructive, or socially unacceptable in some cases. Glasser discusses examples of people of suicidal tendencies, anorexics, alcoholics, and homosexuals.

It is important to realize that no two people can share the same pictures. Glasser suggests this realization must be an integral part of the way we deal with everyone around us. Many of these pictures can be very difficult to change, but change is still possible.

Glasser explains that forcing a change is usually counterproductive. To get along with someone and perhaps eventually persuade them to change some of there pictures, we need to begin by trying to find some pictures that you share with them. Glasser discusses further how this process further develops into a more productive relationship. Related topics such as conflict, criticism, and raising children are also discussed in his book.
Glasser explains how our behavior is our attempt to reduce the difference between what we want (our picture in our heads) and what we have (the way we see situations in the world). This behavior involves acting, thinking, feeling, or may involve or bodies. Glasser discusses why we often hang on to a picture in our heads even if it means in engaging ineffective behaviors. Glasser recognizes four separate components of what is he calls total behavior, doing (or active behaviors), thinking, feeling, and physiology. He claims the more we are able to recognize all of the different components of or behavior the more we will be in control of our lives. He explains it is impossible to choose a total behavior and not choose all of its components. If we want to change behavior, we can choose to change its doing and thinking components. Regardless of how we feel, we always have some control over what we do. Glasser explains, “…, I have no ability to change how I feel, separate from what I do or think, but I have almost complete ability to change what I do, and some ability to change what I think, regardless of how I am choosing to feel.”

Glasser explains that we are not controlled by external events, difficult as they may be. “Nothing we do is caused by what happens outside of us. If we believe that what we do is caused by forces outside of us, we are acting like dead machines, not living people.” We must take responsibility for our actions.

Conclusion
Glasser credits his introduction to control theory to Willian T. Powers highly theoretical book Behavior: The Control of Perception (Chicago: Aldine, 1973). Although control theory has been supported by research, Glasser points out that his book, Control Theory, is a book of ideas, not research. Glasser expresses his gratitude to Dr Ellen J. Langer of Harvard University for compiling much of this corroborating research in her book, The Psychology of Control (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1983).

This book teaches the principles of control theory to help the reader gain effective control of their lives. The reader will learn to make more effective choices rather than the ineffective and painful ones we often make in attempt to satisfy our powerful and unrelenting needs. Glasser advises, though, to truly learn control theory, we must give up our lifelong, common sense belief that we must merely react to events around us. He warns the reader that this may not be an easy change. He adds, that lifelong beliefs die hard, particularly if they are held by almost everyone you know. Finally, Glasser encourages the reader to be skeptical of the concepts explained in his book. He states, “Believe nothing in this book, no matter how persuasive my argument, unless you try it out in your life and discover it works for you.”

 

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)
Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Posted in Change Basics, Change Definitions, Change Tools, Get ready for Change, Psychology of Change, Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Change Psychology: Contingency Theory

recently wrote about building up a resource for Change knowledge here within this very Blog. Finally I got the time to deal with some basic psychological questions of Change. I am looking forward to be able to share those insights on “Change Psychology” with you, here.

Contingency theories are a class of behavioral theory that contend that there is no one best way of organizing/ leading and that an organizational/ leadership style that is effective in some situations may not be successful in others. In other words: The optimal organization/ leadership style is contingent upon various internal and external constraints.

These constraints may include:

 

  • the size of the organization
  • how it adapts to its environment
  • differences among resources and operations activities
  • managerial assumptions about employees, strategies
  • technologies used, etc.

Four important ideas of Contingency Theory are

  1. There is no universal or one best way to manage
  2. The design of an organizations and its subsystems must ‘fit’ with the environment
  3. Effective organizations not only have a proper ‘fit’ with the environment but also between its subsystems and
  4. The needs of an organization are better satisfied when it is properly designed and the management style is appropriate both to the tasks undertaken and the nature of the work group.

Contingency theory of leadership
In contingency theory of leadership, the success of the leader is a function of various contingencies in the form of subordinate, task, and/or group variables. The effectiveness of a given pattern of leader behavior is contingent upon the demands imposed by the situation. These theories stress using different styles of leadership appropriate to the needs created by different organizational situations. No single contingency theory has been postulated. Some of the theories are:

  • Fiedler’s contingency theory: Fiedlers theory is the earliest and most extensively researched. Fiedler’s approach departs from trait and behavioral models by asserting that group performance is contingent on the leader’s psychological orientation and on three contextual variables: group atmosphere, task structure, and leader’s power position. This theory explains that group performance is a result of interaction of two factors. These factors are known as leadership style and situational favorableness. In Fiedler’s model, leadership effectiveness is the result of interaction between the style of the leader and the characteristics of the environment in which the leader works.
  • Hersey & Blanchard’s situational theory: This theory is an extension of Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid Model and Reddin’s 3-D management style theory. With this model came the expansion of the notion of relationship and task dimensions to leadership and adds a readiness dimension.

Contingency theory of decision making
Vroom and Yetton’s decision participation contingency theory or the Normative decision theory: According to this model, the effectiveness of a decision procedure depends upon a number of aspects of the situation: the importance of the decision quality and acceptance; the amount of relevant information possessed by the leader and subordinates; the likelihood that subordinates will accept an autocratic decision or cooperate in trying to make a good decision if allowed to participate; the amount of disagreement among subordinates with respect to their preferred alternatives.

Contingency theory is similar to situational theory in that there is an assumption of no simple one right way. The main difference is that situational theory tends to focus more on the behaviors that the leader should adopt, given situational factors (often about follower behavior), whereas contingency theory takes a broader view that includes contingent factors about leader capability and other variables within the situation.

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)
Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Posted in Change Basics, Change Definitions, Change Tools, Get ready for Change, Psychology of Change, Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Change Psychology: Contact Hypothesis

recently wrote about building up a resource for Change knowledge here within this very Blog. Finally I got the time to deal with some basic psychological questions of Change. I am looking forward to be able to share those insights on “Change Psychology” with you, here.

Description
This is the principle that bringing people together who are in conflict (or where one is bullying the other), the conflict will subside as they get to understand one another. When first tried in such as multi-racial schools, this often failed dramatically. In practice, it requires other conditions:

  • Remove conflict: It is not sufficient just to nullify the source of problems, but it is necessary.
  • Mutual Interdependence: Where one party can safely pull out, then this position of power can destroy common understanding.
  • Equal status: If one party has advantages that the other does not, then this again unbalances power.
  • Positive contact: The context for contact between parties must be conducive to friendly interactions.
  • Typical contact: The people that are met must be perceived as typical of the other groups, so that the positive perceptions are generalized to the rest of the population.
  • Social norms of equality: In the situation of contact, it must be a general norm that all parties are equal.

Research
Sherif et al (1961) in the famous boy’s camp study where they stirred up rivalry between two groups found that they could cool the hostility down by giving them tasks where no one group could complete it by themselves. Thus forced to work together, the boys became friends again.

Example
Judicial systems sometimes insist on petty criminals directly helping the people they have hurt. Done well, this helps both parties.

So what?
To mediate between conflicting parties, use the above principles to set up a situation where they can meet and increase understanding.

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Psychology of Change (Picture source: http://inspirida.com)
Original article taken from http://changingminds.org

Posted in Change Basics, Change Definitions, Change Tools, Get ready for Change, Psychology of Change, Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment