Beliefs
without reason
This is a resource
file which supports the regular public program "areol" (action
research and evaluation on line) offered twice a year beginning
in mid-February and mid-July. For details email Bob
Dick
bd@bigpond.net.au
...
in which the nature of "beliefs without reason" is discussed,
and some ways of bringing about change despite these beliefs
are briefly examined
A Czech translation is available at
http://www.autoersatzteile.de/blog/vira-bez-rozumu
There is also a
Bulgarian translation
courtesy of Artem Delik
Contents
Many of our
most dearly-held and vigorously-defended beliefs are held as
"beliefs without reason". We don't know why we hold them. We
are absolutely convinced that they must be defended at all
costs.
Reason and evidence
offer no challenge to such beliefs. We know they are
true. Our emotional investment in them discourages us from
paying attention to contrary evidence.
In short, there is no
point in using reason to respond to beliefs without reason.
Reason is irrelevant. Other strategies must be used. This
document describes some of the strategies. It is based closely
on earlier papers of the same name, with some additional
material.
[ index
]
The development of
beliefs without reason
"Beliefs without reason"
are beliefs which we have been taught to hold without being given
adequate reasons. If the teaching is sufficiently strong, the
result is to inoculate us against the evidence.
You have probably heard
conversations like this between parent and child...
"Don't do that
Johnny!"
"Why not,
Mummy?"
I expect you have heard
the conversation continue. What typically follows is a spurious
reason to support the command...
"Because I say
so." [or some other authority figure says
so]
"Because I'll punish
you if you do it." [or someone else
will]
"Because nice [or
intelligent or liked or etc.] people don't do
that."
"Because a
police-person [or any other bogey person] will get
you."
And so on.
Answers like these do
not explain the prohibition. This is true even when parents (and
others )think that is what they are doing. The effect such answers
have is to teach the child to feel bad at certain thoughts, and
good at certain other thoughts.
In due course the child
internalises the beliefs and feelings. Thereafter (s)he may do
what (s)he has been taught to do. We could say that the child has
developed a conscience about this matter.
It is important to
recognise what is being created by this approach. The child has
taken in a mental construct -- a "meme" or belief transmitted from
generation to generation.
The mental construct has
both belief and feeling components. The beliefs tells us what to
do. In other words, they provide the direction. The feelings are
what reward us for being "good" or punishes us for being "bad".
They provide the energy to act.
Beliefs without
associated feelings have less influence on behaviour. A few years
ago I heard a doctor talking on talk-back radio about how to quit
smoking. One caller asked...
"What is the
easiest way you know to give up smoking?"
to which the doctor
replied...
"Have a
coronary!"
The belief that smoking
is harmful may not, of itself, be enough to bring about a change.
A coronary attach, on the other hand, demonstrates that mortality
is more than an empty concept. The risk of death provides the
emotional component. Quitting is then more likely to
occur.
The form of conscience
mentioned earlier is an echo of the parental voice which told us
what to do, or a nonverbal equivalent. The feeling component is
provided by the parent's approval or disapproval. It need not be
said out loud -- it is often conveyed by the parent's tone of
voice, or other non-verbal behaviour.
Note that I am not
saying that such beliefs are necessarily wrong. The point is this:
beliefs without reason, and with feelings, shape our
behaviour.
And here is the
important implication... Giving reasons for changing the behaviour
may not have any effect.
[ index
]
The ubiquity of beliefs
without reason
Beliefs without reason
are an important vehicle of our social inheritance. Many of them
are about the social structures and relationships that are
important to our culture.
So we have deep-seated
assumptions about the way organisations ought to be structured. We
may have strong beliefs about the way managers ought to behave, or
how much of ourselves we should reveal in various settings or to
various people. We may "know" the "right way" for people in
various roles should relate to one another...
In fact, social
structures such as organisations and families and the like could
be said to be mental constructs. They exist more in the minds of
people than in the objective world.
Often, then, changes
which are adopted for good reason may encounter unreasoned
resistance. And "unreasoned" is precisely what it is. People who
don't understand the reasons for their resistance invent them,
confusing themselves and others, and locking themselves into
positions which they then find difficult to abandon.
If such beliefs without
reason cannot be challenged by reason or evidence, how then can
they be changed? The remainder of this document briefly describes
some of the strategies.
[ index
]
Building
relationships
We are more tolerant of
"crazy" ideas from friends than from strangers or enemies.
Therefore, good relationships foster change.
We often tend to put
more effort into retaining relationships with people who do as we
wish than with people who don't. But in reality, our relationship
with people is often the easiest and most effective vehicle we
have for increasing the attention they pay to us.
There is benefit, for
example, in
- challenging a
person's actions or the outcomes of those actions, and doing so
in such a way that our respect for the person and our
relationship is made clear;
- putting extra effort
into maintaining relationships when the relationship is
threatened by differences of opinion; and
- making it clear to
people that we value them and the relationship by saying so,
instead of hoping that they will pick that up from our
non-verbal behaviour.
It is for such reasons
as these that an ability to form close and honest relationships is
important to those of us who wish to be agents of change. This
includes parents, managers, trainers, consultants and educators,
amongst others.
[ index
]
Participation and
involvement
Participation and
involvement reduce resistance. The more we can involve people in
decision-making and planning, the more effort they are likely to
expend getting the decision or plan to work.
One tries to make the
best decision. Sometimes, however, people will successfully
undermine the best decision if it does not accord with their
beliefs. They may also contrive to get a second-best decision to
work well.
Further, if people are
involved in the planning, they may have important information
about the situation to contribute. Participative planning is often
based on more complete information.
Participation also
consumes time. Therefore, you may sometimes have no choice -- you
may have to act first, and then inform people what you have done.
If this occurs, however, it is pointless to blame people for their
resistance. That was inherent in the lack of
participation.
Note, too, that people
do often tolerate occasional urgent decision. For example, if it
is done only occasionally, for good reason, by someone they trust,
it may provoke little or no resistance.
I am not saying that
participation will always lead to effective decision-making. The
processes you use have to be good. And in any event, sometimes
people will insist on making decisions which are operationally
poor, or expensive, or impractical, and consistent with their
beliefs without reason. But when a plan is developed, at least you
are not as likely to find it sabotaged.
Knowing who to involve
in a change program is often a very important part of managing
change.
[ index
]
Trials
Participation can be
enhanced by adopting a trial. People may agree willingly to
introducing a change for a trial period. It helps if they trust
your motives -- they think you will abandon it if it doesn't work.
It can also be a good idea to agree on the way in which the trial
will be evaluated.
If you adopt a trial, it
is likely that within the social system there is someone who is
keen to try the change. They are more likely to give the
innovation a genuine trial compared to those who are opposed.
[ index
]
Focussing on
outcomes
Sometimes it is possible
to reach agreement on outcomes or goals, thus side-stepping the
debate about reasons.
For example, suppose a
member of your work team is behaving in ways which interfere with
team performance because of some belief about what is right.
Challenging the behaviour may result only in heightened resistance
or righteous indignation, a satisfying feeling.
You might instead
describe the outcomes you want. You might explain why those
outcomes are desirable. On accasion that may be enough to change
the behaviour. In doing this, you leave the decision about
behaviour to the person. It is then their responsibility to find a
behaviour which gives the required outcomes.
I have heard that some
Employee Assistance Schemes have had dramatically good results in
remedying drug abuse. Such schemes don't argue with a person about
whether or not (s)he has a drug problem. They focus instead on
performance (which is accepted by most people as a valid
management concern). They promise continued work provided
treatment is undertaken and performance remedied.
[ index
]
Discovering the
reasons
Sometimes you can help
people to discover the reasons behind their beliefs. Their
resistance may arise from a wish to defend the past. Asking people
to change can imply a criticism of the way they have behaved in
the past.
You need not attack the
past. You can instead point out the ways in which the situation
has now changed. You can then enlist their help in identifying
what should be maintained and what should be changed. This is more
likely to involve them in some thought about what is
needed.
For example, most people
have firm ideas about the "right" way to structure organisations.
The traditional right way is appropriate for low to moderate rates
of change. It breaks down at faster rates of change. If you give
people this reasoning, they may merely fight against it. If you
allow them to discover it for themselves, they are much more
likely to try to adopt the change.
Presenting evidence,
allowing people to check its adequacy for themselves, and then
allowing them to draw their own conclusions is a way of doing
this. It may be sufficient. However, it is when the evidence is
deduced from their own experience (as it might be in an
experiential workshop of some form) that the results are most
likely to be positive.
This can often be
combined effectively with the next strategy, that of honouring the
past.
[ index
]
Honouring the
past
Some resistance to
change occurs because people believe they are being asked to deny
what has been an important part of their history. However, if they
can be given an opportunity to examine their past, and the
relevance to the present, they may decide voluntarily that some of
the past can now be left behind. Particularly if the past is
appropriately honoured, it can then be appropriately
buried.
There are history-based
techniques which work well for intact work teams and other social
systems. Tim Dalmau and I have written about them in a number of
places; see the description of a "history trip" in Dick and Dalmau
(1990).
[ index
]
Allowing
time
Time often allows people
to become used to ideas that they resist at first. An idea which
is regarded at first as outlandish may come to seem more natural
with some more exposure to it.
For example, consider
current community attitudes to unmarried couples living together,
compared to the previous attitude that it is "living in
sin".
Sometimes, therefore,
you can reduce the resistance arising from beliefs without reason
by giving enough prior notice of a change. This is more likely to
work if you give a detailed set of reasons, and if you make it
gently clear that the change is going to occur despite whatever
"lobbying" takes place in the meantime (and if people think you
mean it).
[ index
]
Changing the behaviour
directly
Evidence demonstrates
that if you change people's behaviour , their attitudes will later
change to maintain consistency. Witness Peter Wilenski's (1986)
idea of driving change by introducing legislation.
It is often believed
that you change behaviour by first changing attitudes. This is
sometimes true. But mostly it is easier to change attitudes by
first changing behaviour, than it is to change behaviour by first
changing attitudes.
Offering incentives for
some behaviour usually leads in time to an increase in that
behaviour. Some time later again, the attitudes will be found to
have changed too.
Being clear about what
is negotiable is important here. In implementing changes which
have been decided elsewhere, this is more important than
pretending support which isn't real.
Imagine a manager you
report to who actually opposes a change from senior management.
Consider three alternatives: the person says...
"Of course
there are good reasons for this change. The people who made it
have much more information than you do. I support it
unreservedly."
or
"Those idiots
in head office have done it again. I think it's a crazy idea,
but at least we have to make it look as if we've done something
about it. So let's clean it up as quickly as we can and get
back to important things."
or
"It's not a
change that I would have recommended. But it has to happen, and
so I'm determined that it will. Now, how can we make it work so
that it serves some purpose?"
Which of these
approaches would be most likely to gain your cooperation,
and leave intact a trusting relationship with the person
concerned?
_____
These strategies are by
no means the only ones; but I think they include those with the
most potential. Further, they often benefit from being combined
with each other. Several of the strategies can be adopted
simultaneously as part of a program of strategic change.
[ index
]
Notes
Dick, B and Dalmau, T
(1990) To tame a unicorn..: recipes for cultural intervention.
Chapel Hill: Interchange.
Wilenski, Peter (1986)
Public power and public administration. Hale and Iremonger,
Sydney.
(Peter Wilenski was Chair of the Australian Public Service
Board during the late 1970s and early 1980s. This was the period
when the previously stable public sector first began the shake-up
which still continues today.)
An Interchange resource
document
Copyright (c) Bob Dick
2002. May be copied provided it is not included in material sold at
a profit, and this notice is shown
This document can be
cited as follows:
Dick, B. (2002)
Action learning and action research [On
line]. Available at
http://www.aral.com.au/resources/bwr.html
[ top
]
Maintained
by Bob
Dick;
this version 1.04w last modified 20131112