Change

• Inertia – we prefer not to change and will work hard to avoid doing so.
• Assimilation – this term was adopted by Piaget to describe the way we fit new information into our current thought processes. Trivia, for example, fits nicely into our brains and seldom disturbs our sleep.
• Constructionism – my understanding of this term is that we form mental patterns that behave like habits. I know how to find my way home without putting much effort into it. I know people instantly if I see them where I expect to see them doing what I expect them to be doing. I might walk right by someone that I know well if that person is not where I expect and not doing something I would expect them to do. My mental image of this person is linked to locations, ways of being and patterns of doing.
• Stages of change – these are the types of change that are the most familiar to us. They are bigger than constructs but smaller than a developmental stage. If hanging a new picture on your wall is a type of assimilation and remodeling the building an illustration of constructionism then stages of change are more like knocking down the building and starting over. Stages of change are big and noticeable. But not as big as a regional urban renewal effort—which is more like the type of change that developmentalism describes.
• Developmental stages – a developmental stage change is a profound change. Piaget noted that big changes often occur in small increments. One mental concept might shift from stage-four to stage-five while other parts of our life stay at stage-four or possibly stage-three. These increments of change are called accommodation. When enough accommodations accumulate we might experience a radical change because several subsequent accommodations occur almost simultaneously. Thus some people experience developmental change in small increments and some experience it as a major upheaval – which might be called a spiritual transformation.

I believe there is one unifying model that links all of these concepts together. While I am searching for that unifying model I am going to work with these separate models—which I describe in the next pages of this article.

Constructionism

I believe that the Christian religion does more good than harm and further believe that if we practiced it correctly it would be even more beneficial to all. Others believe that religions are bad and can list the numerous atrocities that religious conflicts create.

I look at the problem of addiction today and I see pre-existing conditions and a failed social support system. Others look at addiction and see a disease. We can agree on the symptoms. We can agree on the behaviors. We can agree that the addict was predisposed and that person was vulnerable. We can agree that treatment works. I believe that treatment gives a person tools to cope while someone else may use the phrase “relapse prevention”.

We all have constructs. We all have conflicting constructs. I believe in the remission of addiction and I believe that addiction is triggered through environmental factors. I believe that light travels through space like a particle and yet travels through a prism like a wave. Neither wave theory nor particle theory explains the real nature of light. Neither the social theory nor the disease model explains the behavior of addiction.

In my mind I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and I believe in the Holy Spirit and the Father God. As a constructionist I believe that everything that I know about the father, son and holy ghost came to me from outside, was absorbed into my mind and arranged in patterns that more or less conform to standard Christian theology.

I find that sometimes I need to act as if a construct is true even when I doubt. For example, the disease model of alcoholism explains behaviors in a way that is accurate and easy to communicate to other. My faith in Jesus works best when I accept that he is the son of God and flounders if I think that perhaps he was just a wonderfully wise teacher. Facts are arranged into constructs. And those constructs form what can be called opinions or cognitions. And cognitions shape much of our behavior.

Stages of Change

Stages of change are expressed in a variety of ways. One of the best known models is the Kubler-Ross explanation for the stages of grief consisting of: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. The limitation of that model is that the end state is death. Other models try to explore changes that lift the person to a higher state of being. Authors such as Pyzdek branch off from the Kubler-Ross model towards action as an alternative to acceptance.

A different tact was taken when Prochaska and DiClemente described the "Transtheoretical Model" (TTM). The stages they describe are:

Pre-contemplation: I am not interested in change. Contemplation: I occasionally think about change but I am not willing to commit. Preparation: I want to change and I am trying to figure out how to do so successfully. Action: I am doing things so that I can change my life. Maintenance: I successfully changed and now I am trying to hold onto what I gained. Relapse: I have reverted back to a previous stage.

In the diagram shown above the process repeats endless on the same track. In life we learn new skills so we spiral outward. And we forget and lose skills so we spiral inward. My skill today at calculus is almost zero because I have not practiced that skill in many years. If, tomorrow, however, I studied calculus then the constructs I previously acquired would allow me to learn more quickly than would someone who has never studied that subject.

An addict will cycle through pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action and might relapse. The next time the addict goes through this cycle they will already have the advantage of the skills they learned in the previous cycle.

I use this model in business processes. An executive prepares for action by hiring a consultant. The consultant then works with people who are in pre-contemplation and contemplation to prepare them for action.

Throughout life, I believe we spend most of our time in maintenance. I believe that a disciplined life will challenge us to spend more time in action.

Process

Stages of change apply to people. Organizations formalize change and can implement change on a schedule that conflicts with the stages exhibited by the people in that organization. Shewhart and Deming found that well run projects go through a cycle. First they plan, then execute (do), checks the results and finally act to maintain the change. I worked with that model to change data processing processes. From that experience I found that Deming presumed there is a vision for the effort.

The revised model I use begins with a vision, uses governance to regulate the process, uses projects to make changes, uses metrics to assess customer satisfaction and then uses operations to stabilize and maintain.

People resist change. Organizations resist change. Governments resist change. And yet change occurs. And when it occurs there is friction because the people, organization and government change at different speeds and in different directions. For example, the government may create a law that dictates a new process. The organization resists, but realizes they must comply. The people resist and act as if they do not need to comply.

Technology changes faster than most aspects of our society and I value change. Thus I work in technology because I like change and because the people who like technology like change.

I prefer Process Theology to many other Protestant theologies because it integrates the concept that our understanding of God is growing. I prefer Liberation Theology to many other Catholic theologies because it integrates social change into an understanding of religion.

Process is how you change an organization. Process is how you stabilize and maintain consistency in an organization.

Developmentalism

Stage	Name	Who do I care about?	Phraseology	Words>
0	Infant	Me	This is...
1	Selfish	Extensions of me	Can I...?	No
2	Me-First	Myself with people as objects	I want...!	Why?
3	Team-Player	Myself in relationship to people	I am...	But…
4	Role-Player	One group at a time	You and I are...	Vote on that
5	Statesman	Multiple simultaneous groups	We should...	Although…
6	Humanitarian	Multiple cultures	Humanity is...	Unity
7	Ecological	Universal	Humanity should...

Stage 1 — Selfish. Consider the story of Cain and Abel. When confronted Cain avoids responsibility. His behavior is self-focused and amoral.

Stage 2 — Me-First. Noah brought his family into the ark. And yet, is there any evidence that Noah made any appeal to God to save his friends or neighbors?

Stage 3 — Team-Player. As a youth we recognize not only family but we also have concerns for a network of social contacts. Consider the story of the visitors who came to Sodom to see Lot. The men of Sodom wanted to harm the visitors. Lot had compassion for these visitors and offered to let the men of the city have his daughters if they would leave the visitors alone. Lot extended his concept of family to a broader circle. We learn to care for our brothers and sisters and in stage-three we occasionally intervene on their behalf.

Stage-three is where we spend most of our teen years. We become intently loyal to our favorite team, to our school or to our club. We love competition with other schools or teams or clubs. Occasionally we might collaborate with a rival club but only if we can find some goal that allows us to make sense of the collaboration. Consider the relationships between the tribes of Israel and their neighbors as they followed Moses. Collaboration was despised and in nearly every situation in which it occurred we are told that it led to adverse consequences. Enemies negotiated treaties under false pretenses. Enemies’ lives were spared only to become the cause of ferment years later. In stage-three we think of us versus them with clear demarcations as to “one of us” versus “one of them”.

Stage 4 – Role-Player. In the USA today many people never grow past stage-three. When someone reaches stage-four they value roles. Roles lead us to organizational structures as we use our roles to define who we are. You can identify stage-four when there is awkwardness if you encounter someone in a cross-cultural situation. For example, if you meet a work friend in a social setting you might find that the personality you know from work is altered as the work role and the social role are distinct. Solomon was the person who brought institutional government to Israel. None of the kings that followed knew how to govern the whole like he did.

One of the key characteristics of stage-four is our acceptance that people of different cultures can collaborate to solve shared problems. In stage-three we are focused on our groups and treat other groups with suspicion. In stage-four we bridge groups.

Stage 5 — Statesman. One of the problems that the early Christian church encountered was how to integrate the diverse people who were coming to their faith. In stage-three you are either like us or you cannot be one of us. The early Christians debated which foods to eat and which customs to follow. Teenagers use their social structure to define which music is good and which is bad. That is stage-three. The early Christians then dealt with stage-four issues and had to create an organizational structure and define roles. Stephen was chosen as one of the first leaders who was not an apostle. The next issue the church faced was that of integrating diverse cultures into one body. Stephen worked to ensure that all of the diverse cultures were treated equitably. Stage-five is rare. One of the key factors that distinguish statesmen from politicians is the ability to bridge cultures and balance the concern for each constituency. People who reach stage-five are the leaders who unify society.

Paul describes his life as a series of roles in which he fit into each of the stage-three cultures that he encountered. And yet, Paul was always the same no matter where he was. Paul then used his perspective as an integrated person to define the organizational structure that he envisioned for his diverse flocks. And while Paul was the same to each flock, he recognized that each flock was unique and yet all were of the same body.

Stage 6 — Integrated. Stage-six is very rare. In stage-six we realize that we are only one cell in the vast body of humanity. In stage-six we understand reverability – that the lives you and I live could easily be exchanged. The key theme in the Sermon on the Mount is that the low will lifted and the mighty will be deflated.

I explore the concepts of developmental psychology is more depth in my book “Growth Rings: How We Get Connected.” In that book I also expand the concept from personal psychology to cultural evolution.

Social Change

Vygotsky studied the social constraints of growth and found that we grow best when we experience an optimal gap called “proximal development” between where we are and what we see. Kohlberg experimented with social changes to help more students grow to an age appropriate stage. Loevinger described the concept of “pacer” as a role model that demonstrates the next stage in a range of “proximal development” in order to pull people into that next stage.

People might seek knowledge to assimilate. People work to form new constructs. People resist change and then decide they want change. But people seldom seek developmental change and no one seems to know how to actually trigger a developmental shift. In the model I work with I believe that love and dissonance create an environment that allows developmental change. I desire developmental growth and seek dissonance hoping to experience another stage change. And then, when enough of us change, our culture changes.